A Novel Natural Active Coagulant Agent Extracted from the Sugarcane Bagasse for Wastewater Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed the article with title: A Novel Natural Active Coagulant Agent Extracted from the 2 Sugarcane Bagasse for Water Purification.  The article topic is intriguing and promising in the area. Overall, the article structure and content are suitable for the Applied Sciences journal. I am pleased to send you major-level comments, there are some serious flaws which need to be corrected before publication. Please consider these suggestions as listed below.  

 1.       The title seems good, and the abstract also seems to be good. Please add one more introductory line of your objective at beginning of the abstract.

2.       Research gap should be delivered in a clearer way with the directed necessity for future research work.

3.       Introduction section must be written in a more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed. Please target the specific gap etc.

4.       The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.  

5.       What is the main challenge?

6.       Line 37, Page 1 needs a reference-please to cite this one- Role of nanomaterials in the treatment of wastewater: A review.

7.       The sentence line 38 to 40 also need a strong backing. This article has this information. Please cite this-Yaqoob, A.A.; Mohamad Ibrahim, M.N.; Ahmad, A.; Reddy, A.V.B. Toxicology and environmental application of carbon nanocomposite. In Environmental Remediation Through Carbon-Based Nano Composites; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–18.

8.       Please provide space between numbers and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs in several spots in the paper. 

9.       ``To date, there are many established natural coagulants``…? Without any evidence how do the authors claim?

10.    Please check the abbreviations of words throughout the article. All should be consistent.

11.    The main objective of the work must be written in a clearer and more concise way at the end of the introduction section

12.    Please add a material and reagent section and state all chemicals with specification.

13.     Please include all chemical/instrumentation brand name and other important specification.

14.    Result and discussion seem ok. No comment

15.    Regarding the replications, authors confirmed that replications of experiment were carried out. However, these results are not shown in the manuscript, how many replicated were carried out by experiment? Results seem to be related to a unique experiment. Please, clarify whether the results of this document are from a single experiment or from an average resulting from replications. If replicated were carried out, the use of average data is required as well as the standard deviation in the results and figures shown throughout the manuscript. In case of showing only one replicate explain why only one is shown and include the standard deviations.

16.    Provide original Figure 5a with instrumentation bar specification.

17.    Section 5 should be renamed by Conclusion and Future perspectives. The conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantifying main research findings, and highlighting relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect. Its very weird in the present form.

18.    To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, minor level English language should be thoroughly checked.

19.    Reference formatting need carefully revision. All must be consistent in one formate. Please follow the journal guidelines.

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Reviewers Comments	Author(s) Responses*
REVIEWER #1
The title seems good, and the abstract also seems to be good. Please add one more introductory line of your objective at beginning of the abstract	The author thanks the reviewer’s comment. Introductory line of the objective was added at the beginning of the abstract (Line 26-27).
Research gap should be delivered in a clearer way with the directed necessity for future research work.	Thank you for the comment. Research gap was edited for it to be delivered in a clearer way with the directed necessity for future research work (Line 97-98; 100-102)
Introduction section must be written in a more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed. Please target the specific gap etc.	Many thanks for the comment. References was edited by using more up-to-date journal. Specific gap was targeted at line 97-98; 100-102.
The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.	Thank you for the comment. The author believe that the novelty of the work was clearly addressed. Previous study already shows the removal performance of bagasse as natural coagulant in water and wastewater treatment but least study focus on the effect of extraction process on wastewater treatment with respect towards the active coagulant agent content.
What is the main challenge?	Thank you for the comment. The author believe that the main challenge was addressed in introduction section. (Line 53)
Line 37, Page 1 needs a reference-please to cite this one- Role of nanomaterials in the treatment of wastewater: A review.	Thank you for the comment. Reference as suggested by the reviewer was added (Line 44)
The sentence line 38 to 40 also need a strong backing. This article has this information. Please cite this-Yaqoob, A.A.; Mohamad Ibrahim, M.N.; Ahmad, A.; Reddy, A.V.B. Toxicology and environmental application of carbon nanocomposite. In Environmental Remediation Through Carbon-Based Nano Composites; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–18.	Thank you for the comment. Reference as suggested by the reviewer was added (Line 45).
Please provide space between numbers and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs in several spots in the paper.	Many thanks for the comment. Space between numbers and units was provided except for % which there is no space between numbers and units.
``To date, there are many established natural coagulants``…? Without any evidence how do the authors claim?	Thank you for the comment. Name of the established natural coagulant was added in the text (Line 89-90).
Please check the abbreviations of words throughout the article. All should be consistent.	Thank you for the comment. The author has checked all of the abbreviation and ensure all abbreviation is consistent.
The main objective of the work must be written in a clearer and more concise way at the end of the introduction section	Thank you for the comment. The objective written at the end of the introduction section was edited for it to be clearer and more concise. (Line 101-103)
Please add a material and reagent section and state all chemicals with specification.	Many thanks for the comment. Material and reagent section was added in the text (Line 105-109)
Please include all chemical/instrumentation brand name and other important specification.	Thank you for the comment. Chemical and instrumentation brand name was added in the text.
Result and discussion seem ok. No comment	Thank you for the comment
Regarding the replications, authors confirmed that replications of experiment were carried out. However, these results are not shown in the manuscript, how many replicated were carried out by experiment? Results seem to be related to a unique experiment. Please, clarify whether the results of this document are from a single experiment or from an average resulting from replications. If replicated were carried out, the use of average data is required as well as the standard deviation in the results and figures shown throughout the manuscript. In case of showing only one replicate explain why only one is shown and include the standard deviations.	Thank you for the comment. Error bar indicating the standard deviation value from results of replication was added in the graphs of Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Provide original Figure 5a with instrumentation bar specification.	Thank you for the comment. The author believe that the provided Figure 5a is an original figure obtained from laboratory analysis.
Section 5 should be renamed by Conclusion and Future perspectives. The conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantifying main research findings, and highlighting relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect. Its very weird in the present form.	Thank you for the comments. Section 5 was renamed as Conclusion and Future Perspectives. Future perspectives were added into the text. (Line 398-404)
To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, minor level English language should be thoroughly checked.	Thank you for the comment. Minor level English language was thoroughly checked to avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes.
Reference formatting need carefully revision. All must be consistent in one format. Please follow the journal guidelines.	Thank you for the comment. Reference formatting was carefully revised to ensure the format is consistent.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: applsci-1789691

Title: A Novel Natural Active Coagulant Agent Extracted from the Sugarcane Bagasse for Water Purification

The manuscript in the present form cannot be recommended for publication. Authors should look into the queries below and do the needful

 

Comments

-Why is the need for the protein content analysis if the bagasse is to be used as a coagulant for turbidity removal

-the title should include ‘wastewater’ not ‘water’. Water and wastewater are two different things. This work is about wastewater purification or treatment not water.

-In section 2.5, lines 129-134, the synthetic wastewater was prepared based on wastewater from the food and beverage industry. How do you indicate which of the reagents represent the food industry and that of the beverage industry?

-lines 105-106. Give the summary of the procedure for extracting the bagasse with H₂SO₄ and NaOH.

-In line 102. A stock solution of mixing 2.5 g of grounded powder of bagasse with 200 ml distilled water was stated. Again in line 106, another 5 g bagasse was initially mixed with respective solvents. Clearly let the readers know the differences between these two preparations. What is the first step meant to achieve and why is the second step?

-In line 138, was the mixture adjusted to pH 6 or that was the original pH of the mixture? If it was adjusted to pH 6, give the reagent (s) that were used and the concentration. Why this pH 6. Give the reason (s) for maintaining pH 6 and provide a reference for this.

-line 143. State the procedures of maintaining the mixtures at the different pH values.

-There should be a sub-heading with the governing formula for the turbidity measurements or determination. How was the turbidity evaluated?

-In section 3.2, lines 207-214, the extraction procedure should be removed from results and discussion and included under the methods (section 2)

-The SEM images are not properly arranged and do not really reveal any surface change. 5b can be seen to show few details about the magnification while 5a is hidden. Lines 314-322 can be understood properly if the SEM images are revealing enough of what the authors have discussed here. The reviewer cannot vividly see the clear differences in these images as provided from lines 314-322.

SEM shows surface changes. Here the extracted bagasse should show sharp and clear differences from the raw bagasse.

Recommendation

MAJOR REVISION

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

REVIEWER #2
Why is the need for the protein content analysis if the bagasse is to be used as a coagulant for turbidity removal	Thank you for the comment. According to Kurniawan et al. (2020), active coagulant agent in natural coagulant can be either superior protein content or polysaccharide content. Primarily, protein content was also determined to identify either protein or polysaccharide is the active coagulant agent of bagasse. After analysis, it shows that protein content of bagasse is lower compared to commonly studied natural coagulant and bagasse have superior polysaccharide content, thus focus on optimizing the polysaccharide content as the active coagulant agent.
The title should include ‘wastewater’ not ‘water’. Water and wastewater are two different things. This work is about wastewater purification or treatment not water.	Thank you for the comment. Term water purification was replaced with wastewater treatment (Line 3)
In section 2.5, lines 129-134, the synthetic wastewater was prepared based on wastewater from the food and beverage industry. How do you indicate which of the reagents represent the food industry and that of the beverage industry?	Many thanks for the comment. The reference for the synthetic wastewater is based on food processing industry wastewater and correction was made to the sentence into “food processing industry wastewater” (Line 149)
lines 105-106. Give the summary of the procedure for extracting the bagasse with H2SO4 and NaOH.	Thank you for the comments. Summary for the procedure for extraction of the bagasse was added into the manuscript (Line 120-123)
In line 102. A stock solution of mixing 2.5 g of grounded powder of bagasse with 200 ml distilled water was stated. Again in line 106, another 5 g bagasse was initially mixed with respective solvents. Clearly let the readers know the differences between these two preparations. What is the first step meant to achieve and why is the second step?	Many thanks for the comment. The explanation on the difference between the two preparations method was added into the text (Line 117-119)
In line 138, was the mixture adjusted to pH 6 or that was the original pH of the mixture? If it was adjusted to pH 6, give the reagent (s) that were used and the concentration. Why this pH 6. Give the reason (s) for maintaining pH 6 and provide a reference for this.	Thank you for the comment. According to literature in journal entitled “Characterization and treatment of wastewater from food processing industry: A review”, common properties of food processing industry wastewater have pH between 5.5 to 9.0. pH 6 is between these ranges and pH 6 is pH that almost neutral.
line 143. State the procedures of maintaining the mixtures at the different pH values.	Thank you for the comment. The procedure of maintaining or controlled the pH values was added (Line 165-166)
There should be a sub-heading with the governing formula for the turbidity measurements or determination. How was the turbidity evaluated?	Thank you for the comment. The author believe that the sub-heading is not necessary but a sentence was added explaining how the turbidity was measured (Line 161-162).
In section 3.2, lines 207-214, the extraction procedure should be removed from results and discussion and included under the methods (section 2)	Thank you for the comment. The author believes that section 3.2, lines 207-214 is important to provide better understanding to the reader on the condition of the extraction where different solvent was used but the temperature and mixing duration was maintained. Therefore, the author did not do any changes in this section.
The SEM images are not properly arranged and do not really reveal any surface change. 5b can be seen to show few details about the magnification while 5a is hidden. Lines 314-322 can be understood properly if the SEM images are revealing enough of what the authors have discussed here. The reviewer cannot vividly see the clear differences in these images as provided from lines 314-322. SEM shows surface changes. Here the extracted bagasse should show sharp and clear differences from the raw bagasse.	Thank you for the comment. The author believes that both Figure 5a and Figure 5b clearly shows the differences of before and after extraction process and representing enough on what the authors have discussed. Figure 5a shows that the morphology characteristic of raw bagasse have smooth surface while after extraction shows the formerly smooth surface become fragmented. Therefore, the author believes there is no figure or description should be added to better describe the images.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted in the present form.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for accepting our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: applsci-1789691

A Novel Natural Active Coagulant Agent Extracted from the Sugarcane Bagasse for Wastewater Treatment

The reviewer has critically looked at this revised version and makes the following submissions:

1.       The reviewer is not satisfied with this revised version especially the responses/rebuttal of the authors. Authors only attended to queries they feel were necessary or convenient for them to address, others were termed ‘not necessary’.  This is not the style of a good reviewing process. Even, if the reviewer’s comments are not totally correct, the responses from the authors should be convincing enough. Most of the responses/rebuttals are not convincing enough. The authors’ responses were as if the reviewer should accept it the way they have put them. Note that the initial recommendation was MAJOR REVISION not minor revision, because the authors have dealt with this review as a minor revision.

2.       The English grammar in several paragraphs is still very poor. Sentences like ‘’This study used bagasse as sources of natural coagulant’’, ‘’The reagent used in this study was summarized as shows in Table 1’’, ‘’To date, there are many established natural coagulants such as Tanfloc that based on tannin’’, ‘’Two (2) different concentration of stock solution was prepared for two (2) different types of analysis (protein and polysaccharide)’’. There are many more grammatical errors in the manuscript that must be corrected.

3.       Concerning the responses to queries:

(i) Old comment. lines 105-106. Give the summary of the procedure for extracting the bagasse with H₂SO₄ and NaOH.

Response from authors: Thank you for the comments. Summary for the procedure for extraction of the bagasse was added into the manuscript (Line 120-123)

Lines 120-123 read: Collected bagasse was extracted to obtain more active coagulant agent. Extraction process of bagasse also known as delignification process. Generally, delignification process was carried out by mixing solvent with bagasse in certain temperature at certain mixing time

Comment: You will notice that this has no bearing in giving the procedure for extracting the bagasse with H₂SO₄ and NaOH. Which solvents were mixed for the extraction, what was the mixing time, the concentration, and at what temperatures?

(ii) Old comment. In line 102. A stock solution of mixing 2.5 g of grounded powder of bagasse with 200 ml distilled water was stated. Again in line 106, another 5 g bagasse was initially mixed with respective solvents. Clearly let the readers know the differences between these two preparations. What is the first step meant to achieve and why is the second step?

Response from authors: Many thanks for the comment. The explanation on the difference between the two preparations method was added into the text (Line 117-119)

Lines 117-119 read: Two (2) different concentration of stock solution was prepared for two (2) different types of analysis (protein and polysaccharide)

Comment: Notice again that this response does not answer the query.

(iii) Old comment. The SEM images are not properly arranged and do not really reveal any surface change. 5b can be seen to show few details about the magnification while 5a is hidden. Lines 314-322 can be understood properly if the SEM images are revealing enough of what the authors have discussed here. The reviewer cannot vividly see the clear differences in these images as provided from lines 314-322. SEM shows surface changes. Here the extracted bagasse should show sharp and clear differences from the raw bagasse.

Response from authors: Thank you for the comment. The author believes that both Figure 5a and Figure 5b clearly shows the differences of before and after extraction process and representing enough on what the authors have discussed. Figure 5a shows that the morphology characteristic of raw bagasse have smooth surface while after extraction shows the formerly smooth surface become fragmented. Therefore, the author believes there is no figure or description should be added to better describe the images.

Comments: It can clearly be seen from SEM image 5a that the image details are not there. Clearly also, you can see different shapes for both raw and extracted bagasse. You can notice that 5b shows stands and a bundle of sheet which has no resemblance to the raw data at all. It also looked like two different machines were used to take the image of both the raw and extracted bagasse separately. Based on these discrepancies, the authors are advised to delete these images if another set of images cannot be provided, and by extension delete the SEM analysis from the write up.

(iv) Old comment: There should be a sub-heading with the governing formula for the turbidity measurements or determination. How was the turbidity evaluated?

Response from author: Thank you for the comment. The author believe that the sub-heading is not necessary but a sentence was added explaining how the turbidity was measured (Line 161-162).

Comment: Since section 2.6 was used to give the procedure for the turbidity study, you will then need to change it to reflect that, rather than using the ‘’Jar test’’ as the heading. A possible heading could be ‘’Turbidity estimation of the treated wastewater’’

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

MAJOR REVISION.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

 

Comment: The reviewer is not satisfied with this revised version especially the responses/rebuttal of the authors. Authors only attended to queries they feel were necessary or convenient for them to address, others were termed ‘not necessary’.  This is not the style of a good reviewing process. Even, if the reviewer’s comments are not totally correct, the responses from the authors should be convincing enough. Most of the responses/rebuttals are not convincing enough. The authors’ responses were as if the reviewer should accept it the way they have put them. Note that the initial recommendation was MAJOR REVISION not minor revision, because the authors have dealt with this review as a minor revision.

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. The authors have addressed all comments point by point.

 

Comment: The English grammar in several paragraphs is still very poor. Sentences like ‘’This study used bagasse as sources of natural coagulant’’, ‘’The reagent used in this study was summarized as shows in Table 1’’, ‘’To date, there are many established natural coagulants such as Tanfloc that based on tannin’’, ‘’Two (2) different concentration of stock solution was prepared for two (2) different types of analysis (protein and polysaccharide)’’. There are many more grammatical errors in the manuscript that must be corrected.

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. The authors have revised the related sentences. 

 

Comment: You will notice that this has no bearing in giving the procedure for extracting the bagasse with H2SO4 and NaOH. Which solvents were mixed for the extraction, what was the mixing time, the concentration, and at what temperatures?

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. The mixing time, the concentration, and temperatures have been listed in Table 2.

 

Comment: Notice again that this response does not answer the query.

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. It is noted that these two preparations were carried out for the analysis of protein and polysaccharide. The authors have revised the sentences in lines 114-120.

Comment: It can clearly be seen from SEM image 5a that the image details are not there. Clearly also, you can see different shapes for both raw and extracted bagasse. You can notice that 5b shows stands and a bundle of sheet which has no resemblance to the raw data at all. It also looked like two different machines were used to take the image of both the raw and extracted bagasse separately. Based on these discrepancies, the authors are advised to delete these images if another set of images cannot be provided, and by extension delete the SEM analysis from the write up.

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. The SEM image as shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b) is from two (2) different machines. Figure 5(a) was taken from Advance Membrane Technology Research Centre (AMTEC), UTM while Figure 5(b) was taken from Pusat Pengurusan Makmal Universiti (PPMU), UTM. SEM image in Figure 5(b) was taken a few months after SEM image in Figure 5(a). The authors did not use the same machine in both images because the machine used for the first image required maintenance and it takes a few months to be done. The author did not have the ample time to wait for the machine to be maintained, thus used the machine from another laboratory. Therefore, the author believes this section is important to show readers on what extraction process did and how broken hemicellulose and lignin looks like and the authors ensure that both images are originally received like that and no detail was left out. Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b) is from two (2) different analysis. Figure 5(a) is SEM image for raw bagasse. After extraction process, bagasse was sent for SEM analysis once more to gain ideas on what extraction process did to the surface of the bagasse which is shown in Figure 5(b). Based on the author’s understanding, raw bagasse has smooth surface rich with lignin and hemicellulose that trap the required polysaccharide content which needed to be used as active coagulant agent as shown in Figure 5(a). After extraction process, the once smooth surface that bagasse has become fragmented as shown in Figure 5(b). The fragmentation of the surface of the bagasse shows that hemicellulose and lignin were broken which allows the extraction of polysaccharide that can be used as active coagulant agent for pollutant’s removal.

 

Comment: Since section 2.6 was used to give the procedure for the turbidity study, you will then need to change it to reflect that, rather than using the ‘’Jar test’’ as the heading. A possible heading could be ‘’Turbidity estimation of the treated wastewater’’

Our response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestion. The author has replaced the sub-heading from “Jar test” to ‘’Turbidity estimation of the treated wastewater’’ as being recommended by the reviewer in line 159.