Development of Cotton Linter Nanocellulose for Complexation of Ca, Fe, Mg and Mn in Effluent Organic Matter
, Luciana Camargo de Oliveira 4 and Danielle Goveia 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of water-1386003
I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor changes. Although the authors could not answer all of the raised questions concerning the adsorption mechanisms, the speculation and given possible explanations are outstanding.
Please find the minor issues I have with the current state of the manuscript below.
1. The abstract seems more like an introduction section. Please refrain from using unnecessary descriptions and limit it to a concise description of the work done.
2. Page 1, line 38: colloids are mixtures and not particles.
Miscellaneous:
- please refrain from unnecessary capitalisation of words (example: Organic Matter),
- a thorough English revision is required in some parts of the manuscript; most likely, different parts written by different authors.
Author Response
Ref.: Response to Reviewers
We thank both reviewers for their evaluation of our paper and useful comments that helped improve the manuscript. A revision of the manuscript has been performed to address all of the comments. Below are our responses to each comment. We are confident we have a better manuscript.
Reviewer #1:
I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor changes. Although the authors could not answer all of the raised questions concerning the adsorption mechanisms, the speculation and given possible explanations are outstanding.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and suggestions. We are confident we have a better product.
Please find the minor issues I have with the current state of the manuscript below.
- The abstract seems more like an introduction section. Please refrain from using unnecessary descriptions and limit it to a concise description of the work done.
Response: The abstract has been changed.
-
Page 1, line 38: colloids are mixtures and not particles.
Response: The sentence was adjusted accordingly.
Miscellaneous:
- please refrain from unnecessary capitalisation of words (example: Organic Matter),
Response: This has been fixed throughout the text.
- a thorough English revision is required in some parts of the manuscript; most likely, different parts written by different authors.
Response: The manuscript has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is very interested and the result are concreted and useful for the scientific community,; however, some aspects must be revised before the acceptation for this Journal. The results aren't well presented, especially the graphs - are too small and unreadable (fig. 3-6). The editorial quality of the manuscript needs to be improved, too. Some specific comments are listed below:
[1] In this article to be provided information about used standards of research methods.
[2] Page 8, line 285 - please delete the dash and replace it with a dot.
[3] Figures and tables shifted throughout the manuscript.
[4] The quality of citations is good and autors referenced the interesting works in this field of research, but I please check their development in accordance with the guidelines for the authors .
In addition is missing in my opinion information to about the possible risks associated with the use of such materials, their disposal.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
The topic is very interested and the result are concreted and useful for the scientific community,; however, some aspects must be revised before the acceptation for this Journal. The results aren't well presented, especially the graphs - are too small and unreadable (fig. 3-6). The editorial quality of the manuscript needs to be improved, too. Some specific comments are listed below:
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and suggestions. We are confident we have a better product. About the graphs, all the graphs quality had been improved
[1] In this article to be provided information about used standards of research methods.
Response: The authors added to the paper information about the standards used and the determination methods are referenced.
[2] Page 8, line 285 - please delete the dash and replace it with a dot.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
[3] Figures and tables shifted throughout the manuscript.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
[4] The quality of citations is good and autors referenced the interesting works in this field of research, but I please check their development in accordance with the guidelines for the authors.
Response: The authors reviewed the references following the guidelines for the authors.
In addition is missing in my opinion information to about the possible risks associated with the use of such materials, their disposal.
The authors added information about the risks associated with using the material.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the authors have prepared nanocellulose from cotton and evaluated its adsorption behavior for humic substances and metal ions. High concentrations of metal ions have adverse effects on various ecosystems and cause environmental problems. Therefore, I believe that this research, which aims to treat metal ions in wastewater at low cost, is an important initiative. The authors have utilized tangential flow ultrafiltration to evaluate the interaction mechanism between nanocellulose and metal ions (e.g., magnesium, iron, calcium). The main analysis method is only spectrometer-based data, which I feel is a bit insufficient. However, I think the manuscript is carefully written and understandable. Please consider the following points when accepting this manuscript for publication.
=Major comments=
1) Why did the authors choose metal Fe, Ca, Mg and Mn for analysis in this study? Please add the reason why you chose these metal ions as targets.
2) A little more information on the Effluent Organic Matter (EfOM) used in this study would be helpful for the reader's understanding. Please consider adding descriptions or references to the components, conductivity, total nitrogen, etc. of EfOM.
=Minor comments=
1) Line 278: What is a SHA? Is it M-EfOM? Please add the official name or description.
2) Line 206: There are two Fig.2s, please correct the figure on page 5 to Fig.1.
3) What is the AAS described in Fig. 1? Is it an abbreviation for atomic absorption spectrometer? Please add the official name or description.
4) In Fig.3, please correct the unit of the horizontal axis from ‘(40 uL)’ to ‘(µL)’.
5) In Fig.5a, please change the start of the horizontal axis to 0 minutes instead of -200 minutes.
6) As for the units of the horizontal axis of the graphs in Figures 3 to 6, I feel that ‘hours’ rather than ‘minutes’ would be easier to understand. Also, the size of the text in each graph is too small, so it would be better to fix the size.
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
In this study, the authors have prepared nanocellulose from cotton and evaluated its adsorption behavior for humic substances and metal ions. High concentrations of metal ions have adverse effects on various ecosystems and cause environmental problems. Therefore, I believe that this research, which aims to treat metal ions in wastewater at low cost, is an important initiative. The authors have utilized tangential flow ultrafiltration to evaluate the interaction mechanism between nanocellulose and metal ions (e.g., magnesium, iron, calcium). The main analysis method is only spectrometer-based data, which I feel is a bit insufficient. However, I think the manuscript is carefully written and understandable. Please consider the following points when accepting this manuscript for publication.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and suggestions. We are confident we have a better product.
=Major comments=
1) Why did the authors choose metal Fe, Ca, Mg and Mn for analysis in this study? Please add the reason why you chose these metal ions as targets.
Response: The metals studied in this work were chosen due to the high amount found in certain aquatic environments with high hardness (Ca and Mg) and micronutrient contents (Fe and Mn).
2) A little more information on the Effluent Organic Matter (EfOM) used in this study would be helpful for the reader's understanding. Please consider adding descriptions or references to the components, conductivity, total nitrogen, etc. of EfOM.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion and the authors added a brief description about Effluent Organic Matter in the paper's introduction
=Minor comments=
1) Line 278: What is a SHA? Is it M-EfOM? Please add the official name or description.
Response: The term had been corrected.
2) Line 206: There are two Fig.2s, please correct the figure on page 5 to Fig.1.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
3) What is the AAS described in Fig. 1? Is it an abbreviation for atomic absorption spectrometer? Please add the official name or description.
Response: Yes, it is an abbreviation for atomic absorption spectrometer. Now, we added the official name. Thank you.
4) In Fig.3, please correct the unit of the horizontal axis from ‘(40 uL)’ to ‘(µL)’.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
5) In Fig.5a, please change the start of the horizontal axis to 0 minutes instead of -200 minutes.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
6) As for the units of the horizontal axis of the graphs in Figures 3 to 6, I feel that ‘hours’ rather than ‘minutes’ would be easier to understand. Also, the size of the text in each graph is too small, so it would be better to fix the size.
Response: Corrected as recommended.
