Comparative Study on the Decontamination Efficacy of Peelable Coatings for Heavy Metals Removal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     An array of experiments to evaluate the proposed method and coatings for cleaning an authentic firearm or similarly shaped surrogate object.

2.     Kinetic uptake test of each film to assess the optimal cleaning time and discern any, if at all, significant differences among the coatings.

3.     The behavior of mass transfer of the metals through the coatings. The distribution of metals across the cross section of the coatings and any impact of the chelator on those distributions.

4.     The method of coupon contamination must be clarified. The authors state that uniform dripping of solution on the coupons is vague and does not indicate if the drops were spread; if the contaminant solution was dried before applying the cleaning coating.

5.     It must be clarified why using a coating approach would be superior to simply rinsing the firearm in a detergent solution, which would avoid having to let a coating dry then peel it off. Furthermore, would peeling the coating from a complex surface like a firearm be a simple process, or could it keep ripping and make such a process time consuming for the user. Additionally, it must be explained whether the main route of exposure to the metals is from the airborne dust or from “self-contamination” from touching the metal surface then touching the mouth, nose, or eyes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers’,

We have taken into account the reviewers’ suggestions and we have revised the manuscript in accordance. We have marked in yellow all the modified parts in the manuscript and we have uploaded a point-by-point response the each of the reviewers.

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your patience in assessing this manuscript and for your valuable observations and suggestions.

Thank you for your assistance,

Best regards,

Dr. Edina Rusen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the manuscript titled "Comparative Study on the Decontamination Effectiveness of ''Green'' Strippable Coatings" describe the use of "green" polymeric strippable coatings for the trapping and removal of heavy metals from contaminated surfaces. Although full of results and exciting ideas, the manuscript appears off-topic with respect to the purposes of the journal. Furthermore, the introduction and the manuscript discussions seem more focused on the detection techniques used than the search for decontaminating agents. It is not explained why the decontaminated products are defined as "green" are they biodegradable? are they non-toxic? Have eco-compatibility tests been carried out? The novelty of the study in question and the impact it may have on the management of water resources is not explained.

For this reason, this manuscript cannot be published in its present form. I invite the authors to review the scope and revise the manuscript.

Here are some minor tips

The authors 

Line 20 extra bracket are present please remove it

Line 19-22 please rewrite the sentence

Line 29 it is not explained the impact of this study 

Introduction

Line 94 -96 and line 103-106 the sentence are similar please choose one 

Line 114-115 please revise the sentence seems results or miss reference.

Line 451 “thru” is incorrect please revise

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers’,

We have taken into account the reviewers’ suggestions and we have revised the manuscript in accordance. We have marked in yellow all the modified parts in the manuscript and we have uploaded a point-by-point response the each of the reviewers.

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your patience in assessing this manuscript and for your valuable observations and suggestions.

Thank you for your assistance,

Best regards,

Dr. Edina Rusen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Section 2.1, the materials can be shortened. If possible, the introduction of reagents can be removed or moved to the supplementary files.

2. Section 2.2.1.1 Four chelating agents were used for sample preparation. What is the related mechanism for the coordination or doping of such agents into the prepared samples. The stability of reagents in the prepared samples is important when the samples were used for contaminants detection or removal.

3. Section 2.2.5, the characterization methods can be moved to the supplementary files.

4. Section 3.1, the illustration graph is interesting. But only the common clean steps were described. If possible, the related mechanism for the surface cleaning and the gel formation should be added to the graph.

5. Figs. 2-3 should be reorganized and placed in the section of mechanism analysis.

6. The characterization data of contaminated sample before and after coating treatment should be given. For instance, the SEM images of contaminates sample before and after treatment, can be added to show the effect of gel coating in the removal of heavy metals and/or other potential pollutants. In addition, the corresponding SEM images of gel coating before use should be given, in comparison with the used gel samples.

7. Actually, the contaminated sample was not introduced clearly, so that the related description in the removal performance of gel coating is not reliable.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers’,

We have taken into account the reviewers’ suggestions and we have revised the manuscript in accordance. We have marked in yellow all the modified parts in the manuscript and we have uploaded a point-by-point response the each of the reviewers.

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your patience in assessing this manuscript and for your valuable observations and suggestions.

Thank you for your assistance,

Best regards,

Dr. Edina Rusen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing reviewers' comments. Good luck with your future research.

Author Response

Thank you very much!!!

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please response positively to the question. For instance, the response and the revision should be given in the response. 

2. The figures should be modified to make it scientific and readable.

3. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 comments:

We would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for their time and patience in evaluating our study.

1. The manuscript was rechecked for grammar mistakes.
2. We have modified Figures 2 and 11 to improve the readability in accordance with the reviewer’s comments.