Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached my recommendations for the authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It can improve!

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the Polymer Enhanced Ultrafiltration method, which is predicated on the creation of a composite PVC-ZnO membrane, was used to eradicate ciprofloxacin. The characterizations of obtained membrane are enough and discussion and explanation are reasonable. However, some details of experiment are needed to improve. Therefore, minor revisions are recommended before it is accepted for publication. The detailed comments are listed below:

 

1.     Other antibiotics should be used to test membrane performance.

2.     Figure 4 is confused, and improve it.

3.     Why the flux is so low. Please give the explanation. What is the advantage of this membrane comparing to other membranes in literatures.

4.     (line 602-606) Please give the explanation why the flux decreases with the increase of concentration.

5.     (Figure 11-14) The effect of ZnO concentration on membrane morphology should be explained.

6.     The language need be improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language need be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved in line to reviewer comments so that it can be accepted for publication