Effects of the Operational Parameters in a Coupled Process of Electrocoagulation and Advanced Oxidation in the Removal of Turbidity in Wastewater from a Curtember
, Angel Britaldo Cabrera-Salazar 1, Juan Taumaturgo Medina-Collana 1, Jimmy Aurelio Rosales-Huamani 2,*, Elmar Javier Franco-Gonzales 2 and Gladis Enith Reyna-Mendoza 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The experimental work presented in the manuscript seems adequate for the objectives proposed by the authors. However, to consider this manuscript suitable for publication, it is necessary to improve its clarity in terms of discussing the results and what conclusions can be taken from the analysis of the data obtained. Following are some comments that should be addressed by the authors:
(page 1, line 11) Are presented here the optimal conditions for the removal of turbidity, COD, and BOD. However, looking at the results shown in Table 3, both COD and BOD don’t appear as response variables. Therefore, it can be concluded that the COD and BOD removal were not optimized by the Taguchi method, which seems to be the case when reading the abstract. The author should clarify this point.
(page 1, line 30) It is said that some studies report the combinations of EC with other processes. However, the author only points to the references without mentioning some examples of those combinations in the text. This kind of pointing to references without contextualizing its content is repeated a few times further in the manuscript and should be avoided.
(page 2, line 68) It is presented here an example of what can be called sludge valorization. However, this example seems out of context since it is a very specific example and is not related to the work presented in this manuscript.
(page 2, line 82) Seems to be a typing mistake in this line.
(page 2, line 111) It is said here that the experiments were performed with replicate. However, Table 3 presents a single response value for each experiment. Is this value the mean of the replicates? The author should clarify this point.
(page 6, Table 3) In this table, besides the turbidity removal, the values of Energy consumption and mass of aluminum generated are presented as response variables. However, only turbidity removal was considered for the optimization of the process. Why was the energy consumption not considered in the optimization? Considering only the turbidity removal, the best result will always be for the maximum voltage.
(page 9, line 178) The comparison between the processes shows that the coupled process presents slightly better performance in turbidity removal. Is this difference in performance enough to choose the coupled process over the EC process alone. Moreover, if other factors such as energy consumption and process costs are considered, what will be the best process?
Author Response
I send the review in a file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript investigates the performance of electrocoagulation and O3 in treating tanning industry wastewater, through the impact of the factors such as electric potential, pH and flow of ozone, yielding some possible application for tannery industry wastewater treatment. The work is interesting, However, based on the experimental results and the manuscript quality, I suggest this paper need major revision before publication.
1. Line 12, 360 L/h and 2400 mg/h were not universal parameters for wastewater treatment and meaningless, thus need to be revised to a universal one.
2. Line 14, the COD and BOD removal was not high.
3. The novelty of the study needs to be clearly illustrated.
4. Line 30,31 etc, the citation is not right, kindly revise throughout the manuscript.
5. The methods of biological treatment Environ. Res.2022, 207, 112648 can be cited.
6. The reasons for using electrocoagulation for such a kind of wastewater treatment needed to be illustrated, as BOD /COD ratio is not low and biological methods is more appropriate.
7. Line 90, not a standard citation.
8. Figures, kindly add the standard deviation.
9. The COD concentration after treatment is still high, the downstream treatment process needs to be discussed.
10. Figure4, it seems that there is no difference between performance of EC and hybrid.
11. Fig. 5, exp 1-21 are not easy to follow.
12. Feed flow effect change to a more universal index.
Author Response
I send the review in a file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the reviewer’s opinion optimizing an EC process with tanking into account the energy consumption will lead to misleading results since the best removal will be always for the higher values of current. Therefore, without taking into account energy consumption this work is incomplete and not ready to be published.
Author Response
I send the correctives in a file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments have been addressed, thus can be accepted
Author Response
In this case there is no correction
