Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Contact Stress Distribution between Rolling Element and Variable Diameter Raceway of Cageless Bearing
Next Article in Special Issue
Portable X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Organic Amendments: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Application of EEG Signals Integration to Proprietary Classification Algorithms in the Implementation of Mobile Robot Control with the Use of Motor Imagery Supported by EMG Measurements
Previous Article in Special Issue
2D Solid-State HETCOR 1H-13C NMR Experiments with Variable Cross Polarization Times as a Tool for a Better Understanding of the Chemistry of Cellulose-Based Pyrochars—A Tutorial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/app12115763
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Various Forms of Cow Manure Waste as Adsorbents of Heavy Metals

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(11), 5763; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115763
by Oviyanti Mulyani 1,*, Benny Joy 1 and Dikdik Kurnia 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(11), 5763; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12115763
Submission received: 20 April 2022 / Revised: 30 May 2022 / Accepted: 1 June 2022 / Published: 6 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Composts and Organic Wastes: Analytical Methods and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research article " The various form of cow manure waste as chelating agent of heavy metals" is a nice initiation for utilizing cow manure to remove heavy metals. this work should get tested at a pilot level in the future. 

Graphical abstract of the adsorbant pathway with their mechanism will be a good asset to this research paper (optional).

  1. Line 14 - Hard to understand
  2. Correct the spelling for biochar throughout the manuscript and figures
  3. Line 142, 169 - Please mention the author-name
  4. Compare your result with previous research in section 3.2
  5. Line 313 - What is Heavy metals solution and is the line appropriate?
  6. Be precise with your discussion
  7. Line 350 - Double-check this reference (10)
  8. Line 360, 369, 378 - Lactuca sativa, Oryza sativa, Coffes canephora in italics
  9. Try to add DOI in reference (If possible)

Author Response

  1. Comment 1: Line 14: Hard to Understand

 

Answer: In this revised paper, we have changed the sentence to get clear (see line 14-16)

 

  1. Comment 2: Correct the spelling for biochar throughout the manuscript and figures

 

Answer: In this revised paper, we have changed the terms of biochar to be uniform (see Page 6 Graph 1a line 525, Graph 1b and 1c line 528, Page 7 Graph 2a line 590, Graph 2c and 2d line 593, Page 8 Graph 3a line 679, Graph 3b and 3c line 681, Page 9 Graph 4a line 868, graph 4b and 4c line 870

 

  1. Comment 3: Line 142, 169. Please mention the author-name

 

Answer: In this revised paper, we add the authors name (see line 528, 594, 682,872, 935, 999, 1018)

 

  1. Comment 4: Compare your result with the previous research in section 3.2

 

Answer: In this revised paper, we add the relation size of materials with the results in section 3.2 (see line 388-391)

 

  1. Comment 5: Line 313 – What is heavy metals solution and is the line appropriate?

 

Answer: Please find the revised paper about the metal solution (line 1106)

 

  1. Comment 6: Be precise with your discussion

 

Answer: In this revised paper, I make the additional discussion to make the result more precise.

 

  1. Comment 7: Line 350-Double check this reference (10)

 

Answer: Please find the revised paper for this reference (Line 1205)

 

  1. Comment 8: Line 360,378 – Lactuca sativa, Oryza sativa, coffes canephora in italics

 

Answer:Please find the revised paper in line 1229, line 1239, line 1249)

 

  1. Comment 9: Try to add DOI in references (if possible)

 

Answer: Please find the revised paper related to DOI in references in the references section

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  • In introduction section- give the importance and brief overview of the study in the last paragraph
  • Improve the english language in Line 168-181, 235-236, 237-239 and check throughout the MS
  • Give the reference for these sentences in Line 210-220, 253-255
  • Expand the conclusion section a little more with improved English
  1. SECTION 2.8, LINE 113 TO 115- Equation has qc and Cc, but the explanation in 115 is provided for qe and Ce. Please make it uniform.
  2. In graphs and tables – A designated as biochart. Please look into it, is it Biochar or Biochart. Please check the entire manuscript for this spelling error.
  3. Result and discussion – After section 3.2, Biochar show high efficiency in adsorption of heavy metals in varying PH conditions and in different concentrations of adsorbate. This aspect has not been discussed in the study. It can be discussed along with potential reasons for high adsorption.

Othe specific comments

  1. Abstract line no. 10-12 sentence is not clear.
  2. Keywords – Use semicolon after every keyword and arrange in alphabetical order.
  3. Section 2.4 Full form of FA is not found in MS.
  4. Section 2.5 – Give Sample size.
  5. Describe every formula (Page no 3, line no 90,108,113,114).
  6. Section 3.1, line no 126 – 127. Biochar particles are not looking like granular in fig 2b, its look irregular shape. Reanalyze your figures. Increase the resolution of figures for better understand.
  7. In section 3.1 author mentioned fig 4a and 4b but in MS I didn’t find these figures.
  8. I suggest, the manuscript should be re-edited by English native speaker. It's not easy enough to understand.
  9. In section 3.2 change the heading to heavy metal absorption instead of Cr, Pb, and Cd Adsorption.
  10. In graphical images biochar is wrongly spelled.
  11. Please elaborate your conclusion section. Why biochar is more efficient, describe in more detail. Drawback of HA and compost should be mention.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

 

  1. Comment 1: Abstract line no. 10-12 sentence is not clear.

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 10-14)

 

  1. Keywords - Use semicolon after every keyword and arrange in alphabetical order.

      Answer: Please find the revised keywords (line 25)

 

  1. Section 2.4 Full form of FA is not found in MS.

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 412)

 

  1. Section 2.5 - Give Sample size.

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 306)

 

  1. Describe every formula (Page no 3, line no 90,108,113,114).

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 298, 320, 339, 340)

 

  1. Section 3.1, line no 126 - 127. Biochar particles are not looking like granular in fig 2b, its look irregular shape. Re-analyse your figures. Increase the resolution of figures for better understand.

Answer: Please find the revised paper about SEM analysis description, and I change the resolution in higher magnification (10.000 x) (line 352-359)

 

  1. In section 3.1 author mentioned fig 4a and 4b but in MS I didn't find these figures.

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 388)

 

  1. I suggest, the manuscript should be re-edited by English native speaker. It's not

easy enough to understand.

Answer: Please find the revised paper

 

  1. In section 3.2 change the heading to heavy metal absorption instead of Cr, Pb, and Cd Adsorption.

Answer: Please find the revised paper (line 406)

 

  1. In graphical images biochar is wrongly spelled.

Answer: Please find the revised paper of biochar term

 

  1. Please elaborate your conclusion section. Why biochar is more efficient, describe

in more detail. Drawback of HA and compost should be mention.

Answer: Please find the revised paper in conclusion section (line 1112-1168)

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop