Mineralization of High-Concentration Aqueous Aniline by Hybrid Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors report on Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process. Water pollution is indeed a major problem of modern world. developing innovative techniques can help humanity to cope with the pollutants present in water. The present paper has several shortcomings due to which it is not acceptable in this form. The authors need to make major revisions. Some suggestions are given as follow
1: The abstract is not clear and authors need to rewrite it for better understanding. They should mention a summary of their findings as well. The sentences need to have better connectivity
2: Introduction is too short. Th authors have not discuss major works or recent works on the subject. Moreover, they state that To the best of our knowledge, the hybrid process of ozonation and ECO has never been applied in oxidation of high concentration aniline aqueous solution. However, they should clearly mention if this hybridization is their idea or some other groups have worked on the same process but a different pollutant?
3: The English need proper editing in terms of grammer and linguistics. For example sentences like Aniline aqueous was prepared in purified
water (Millipore Milli–Q Advantage A10, America) and was input the reactor by peristal-tic pump....... and so many like this need to be corrected.
4: Kindly revise Figure 1 for better clarity
5: Line no .132: most case, enterprises apt to indirect discharge, what does apt mean?
6: Revise figure 9. All the axis and captions are merged
7: The authors should mention in the form of Table, what are the sources of aniline pollution in water?
8: Did the authors used real samples? The concentration is aniline is so high. Does it really so in real water samples polluted with aniline?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for review my manuscript (Manuscript ID: water-1572642, “Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process”), as to your comments, our response is following:
1: The abstract is not clear and authors need to rewrite it for better understanding. They should mention a summary of their findings as well. The sentences need to have better connectivity
Response 1: the new abstract has be revised, a summary of our findings were included in it. the sentences have better connectivity(see blue font for details in abstract).
2: Introduction is too short. The authors have not discuss major works or recent works on the subject. Moreover, they state that To the best of our knowledge, the hybrid process of ozonation and ECO has never been applied in oxidation of high concentration aniline aqueous solution. However, they should clearly mention if this hybridization is their idea or some other groups have worked on the same process but a different pollutant?
Respone 2: major works or recent works on the subject have added in from line 35 to line 43; the hybrid process of ozonation and ECO is our idea, wehave state this point in line 57 to line 59.
3: The English need proper editing in terms of grammer and linguistics. For example sentences like Aniline aqueous was prepared in purified
water (Millipore Milli–Q Advantage A10, America) and was input the reactor by peristal-tic pump....... and so many like this need to be corrected.
Respone 3: English was edited by professional institute for whole manuscript.
4: Kindly revise Figure 1 for better clarity
Respone 4:Fig 1 has revised more clarity(see Fig 1)
5 Line no .132: most case, enterprises apt to indirect discharge, what does apt mean?
Respone 5: this sentence( line 139) has revised to: In most cases, enterprises are inclined to indirect discharge.
6: Revise figure 9. All the axis and captions are merged
Respone 6: because added a figure in revised manuscript, the Figure 9 became to figure 10, All the axis and captions have separated(see figure 10)
7: The authors should mention in the form of Table, what are the sources of aniline pollution in water?
Respone 7: we have added table 1 to explain the sources of aniline pollution in water
8:Did the authors used real samples? The concentration is aniline is so high. Does it really so in real water samples polluted with aniline?
we did not used real samples now, because real samples include other matericals,which may impact treatment effection, we plan to use real samples in next step. it really exists the 1000 mg/L aniline wastewater, such as the dye wastewater
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper entitled "Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process" represents an interesting study about a combination process in the field of the water and wastewater treatment.
I think that the paper is well structured and well organized with a deep characterization of the process and of the reaction mechanisms.
English needs to be improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for review my manuscript (Manuscript ID: water-1572642, “Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process”), as to your comments, our response is following:
1 English needs to be improved.
Respone 1: English was edited by professional institute for whole manuscript, please see revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript „Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process “. Your work is focused on the subsequent combination of ozonation and electrochemical oxidation for the removal of analine in water, so the standard for discharge in China are required. Your work is interesting but I have some comments and questions that need to be answered. Therefore, I cannot recommend the publication of your manuscript in the present form but I might reconsider my recommendation after successful modification of your work.
- Along your manuscript, you often mentioned the synergistic effect between the ozonation and ECO. I do not agree since you have used a combination of 2 subsequent processes. Therefore, I strongly recommend to change “synergy and/or synergistic” by “subsequent combination”.
- In the introduction, you have to write the full name of ECO, and then use the abbreviation.
- In materials and methods, aniline, NaOH and activated C are purchased from which companies?
- Why activated C is used in the ozonation device? For what purpose? It should be indicated.
- Why compressed air is introduced in the electrochemical device? For what purpose? It should be indicated.
- In section 2.5: “aniline oxidation production” should be replaced by “aniline oxidation products”.
- The part from line 124 to127 should be deleted since you have already mentioned the analysis of aniline byproducts earlier.
- In section 3.1.1: I do not see so obvious the advantage of the hybrid method. Indeed, it seems that the degradation still proceeds after 160 min, so what if the experiments are prolonged for couple of hours? Full degradation would be observed for all the process?
- In section 3.1.2: Explain briefly why the pH decreases during ozonation and do not mention that you observed that in preliminary results.
- In section 3.12: Also, explain briefly why it is beneficial for ECO to have higher oxidation potentials.
- In section 3.1.3: Propose some chemical reactions.
- In section 3.1.3: Concerning the variation of the conductivity, does the pH have an influence also?
- In section 3.2.1: you explained that higher NO3- and NO2- are obtained after longer ozonation time, thus improving the conductivity and leading to better degradation extents. But why the best ozonation time is for 60min and not for 80min. Further discussion is necessary.
- In section 3.2.1: the paragraph from line 236 to 247 should be deleted since it is repeated in the section 3.2.2!
- Figure 7: error bars should be added. Why is there a change in the slope i.e. a stronger decrease of COD for 60 and 80min? It should discussed.
- In section 3.3: the paragraph from line 307 to 315 should be deleted since it is repeated just before!
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for review my manuscript (Manuscript ID: water-1572642, “Mineralization of high concentration aniline in aqueous solutions by hybrid process”), as to your comments, our response is following:
1 Along your manuscript, you often mentioned the synergistic effect between the ozonation and ECO. I do not agree since you have used a combination of 2 subsequent processes. Therefore, I strongly recommend to change “synergy and/or synergistic” by “subsequent combination”.
Respone 1: we have changed “synergy and/or synergistic” by “subsequent combination” for whole manuscript(see line 13, line179-180, line 337 in revised manuscript ).
2 In the introduction, you have to write the full name of ECO, and then use the abbreviation.
Respone 2 : The full name of ECO was wrote in the abstract(line 9-10), and gave the abbreviation
3 In materials and methods, aniline, NaOH and activated C are purchased from which companies?
Respone 3 :we added the companies of aniline, NaOH and activated C purchased, see line 67 to line 70.
4 Why activated C is used in the ozonation device? For what purpose? It should be indicated.
Respone 4 : modified AC were introduced in the reactor for promotion of ozonation reactions, see line 83-85.
5 Why compressed air is introduced in the electrochemical device? For what purpose? It should be indicated.
Respone 5: Compressed air was introduced at the reactor bottom as the oxygen supply through a gas distributor and solution stirred at room temperature (25℃). see line 93-95.
6 In section 2.5: “aniline oxidation production” should be replaced by “aniline oxidation products”.
Respone 6: aniline oxidation production” has be replaced by “aniline oxidation products”. see line 120.
7 The part from line 124 to127 should be deleted since you have already mentioned the analysis of aniline byproducts earlier.
Respone 7: this part hsa be deleted in revised manuscript.
8 In section 3.1.1: I do not see so obvious the advantage of the hybrid method. Indeed, it seems that the degradation still proceeds after 160 min, so what if the experiments are prolonged for couple of hours? Full degradation would be observed for all the process?
Respone 8 Yes, just like you said. The degradation still proceeds after 160 min, if the experiments are prolonged for couple of hours, full degradation would not be observed for the single ozonation process.
9 In section 3.1.2: Explain briefly why the pH decreases during ozonation and do not mention that you observed that in preliminary results.
Respone 9 we explain briefly the pH decreases in line 185-186.
10 In section 3.12: Also, explain briefly why it is beneficial for ECO to have higher oxidation potentials.
Respone 10 : we explain briefly in line 191-193.
11 In section 3.1.3: Propose some chemical reactions.
Respone 11 : we added figure 6 to explain the variation.
12 In section 3.1.3: Concerning the variation of the conductivity, does the pH have an influence also?
Respone 12: we explained this in line 204-206
13 In section 3.2.1: you explained that higher NO3- and NO2- are obtained after longer ozonation time, thus improving the conductivity and leading to better degradation extents. But why the best ozonation time is for 60min and not for 80min. Further discussion is necessary.
Respone 13 Further discussion was added in line 241-251 and line 253-257
14 In section 3.2.1: the paragraph from line 236 to 247 should be deleted since it is repeated in the section 3.2.2!
Respone 14: this part has be deleted.
15 Figure 7: error bars should be added. Why is there a change in the slope i.e. a stronger decrease of COD for 60 and 80min? It should discussed.
Respone 15: error bars has added in Fig 8 (previous figure 7), more discussion see line 245-251.
16 In section 3.3: the paragraph from line 307 to 315 should be deleted since it is repeated just before!
Respone 16: the paragrap has be deleted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted after some minor changes. Kindly increase the font size and line widths in the figures and plots for better clarity
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The quality of your maniscript has been significantly improved after your revision. I can recommend its publication.
Regards,
