Enhancing the Performance of the Electrocoagulation−Filtration System Treating Mariculture Tailwaters by Using Alternating Pulse Current: Effects of Current Density and Current Conversion Period
, Tianlong Qiu 1,2, Fudi Chen 1,2, Ming Sun 1,2,3, Li Zhou 1,2, Jianming Sun 1,2,* and Yishuai Du 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors want to evaluate the treatment of mariculture tailwaters by APC-electrocoagulation The topic of this paper is relevant, timely, and of interest to the audience of Water.
• This paper is based on rigorous academic standards and the content is technically accurate and sound.
• The abstract is concise and enough. However, which type of model solution (mariculture tailwaters) electrocoagulation will be applied to should be included in the TITLE and ABSTRACT part. The introduction provides the necessary background information.
• The research methodology is appropriate and applied properly. The supporting evidence is strongly reliable and properly validated.
• The results of the analysis are correctly interpreted, and conclusions are sound. However, which type of model solution (mariculture tailwaters) electrocoagulation was applied to should be included in the CONCLUSION section. The tables and figures are appropriate and adequate.
• The manuscript is easy to read and free from grammatical or spelling errors.
• The references are comprehensive and appropriate.
In my opinion, the manuscript is acceptable for possible publication after minor revision in Water.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Enhancing the performance of the electrocoagulation-filtration system by using alternating pulse current: Effects of current 3 density and current conversion period
By Xu et al
This study investigated the effects of alternating pulse current (APC) on the electrodes, treatment efficiency and energy consumption of EC-filtration system. Results indicated that APC reduced electrode passivation, enhanced the treatment efficiency, and reduced energy consumption.
The paper is worth publishing in WATER but needs major revisions in terms of below issues:
- Alternating pulse current (APC) is still DC based but NOT alternative current (AC), authors need to clarify this.
- When authors introduced the electrocoagulation and electrode passivation, early work in this field should be cited including:
Laboratory study of electro-coagulation-flotation for water treatment. Water Research, 36, 4064-4078. (2002)
Comparative performance of an electrocoagulation/flotation system with chemical coagulation/dissolved air flotation: a pilot-scale trial. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 2, 289–297. (2002)
- Give reasons to choose the electrode gap of 1.5 cm, why was not 1 cm?
- Authors tried to control the current density by managing the number of electrodes or electrode surface areas “so that the current density can be reduced without changing the working current of EC”. Actually, in practice, [Al] should be measured (as Al was used as electrodes) so that the true Al dose can be monitored. Controlling the current density together with measuring [Al] is common practice when using Al-electrocoagulation for water treatment. Moreover, residual [Al] should be measured which is an important quality parameter to be monitored and controlled.
- Microscreen drum filter was used to filter the EC effluent. Authors need to report the sludge production from the EC and then the filter working period of each run.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is recommended to be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Revision description
Dear Editor:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Enhancing the performance of the electrocoagulation-filtration system by using alternating pulse current: Effects of current density and current conversion period” (Manuscript ID: water-1620208). We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and respond to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Reviewer 3# : Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The manuscript is recommended to be accepted in the present form.
Answer: Thanks reviewer.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although authors agreed that "the yield and residues of [Al] " are important quality parameters, they obviously didn't want analyse these parameters for the study reported in this MS.
I don't think the paper is worth publication without the stated fundamental data and discussions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
