Field Experience for Determination of Formaldehyde in Stack Emissions
, Ezio Bolzacchini 2, Luca Ferrero 2, Giuseppe Clauser 3, Christian Dallapiccola 3, Stefano Maggi 4 and Domenico Cipriano 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is poor organized, including paragraph, figures, and tables.
Figures were wrong numbered in Section 3.2. Figures of the three chromatograms obtained by HPLC in Section 3.2 should be presented together to be well compared, thereby to see the differences. The tables should be divided from the figures. Figures and tables are poor organized.
References should not be listed in Conclusions. It is conclusions, not discussion. The authors claimed that “The method prepared is not complete, and requires further verifications……” in Conclusions. Why the authors do not show the completed works? This work did not present too much data. Is the further work is not related to this work?
As I know, numbers of work would be reported in this filed, why there are only 13 references were listed in the manuscript?
Author Response
The manuscript is poor organized, including paragraph, figures, and tables.
>>all the text wes been reviewed
Figures were wrong numbered in Section 3.2. Figures of the three chromatograms obtained by HPLC in Section 3.2 should be presented together to be well compared, thereby to see the differences. The tables should be divided from the figures. Figures and tables are poor organized.
>>figures corrected as suggested
References should not be listed in Conclusions. It is conclusions, not discussion. The authors claimed that “The method prepared is not complete, and requires further verifications……” in Conclusions. Why the authors do not show the completed works? This work did not present too much data. Is the further work is not related to this work?
>> Correct. The text was reviewed. Our intention is to explain that it was impossible to show all the data we have in only one article, and this is the first of a series of 3 articles. We think that these first conclusions oblained, about some characteristics of the sampling and the good experimental correlation between two methods that, since now, are not known from many researchers, are necessary to introduce the following articles.
As I know, numbers of work would be reported in this filed, why there are only 13 references were listed in the manuscript?
>> personally I prefer to include only reference strictly necessary for the reading; it's a many fault, sorry.
Reviewer 2 Report
Good work. Few modifications are requested as are specified in the attached Report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Line 23: What means stationary sources?
>> text is improved. With the terms 'stationary sources' are intended all the industrial sources of pollution like power stations, chemical/petrochemial plants, incinerators; it's a common term used by ISO and CEN; 'mobile sources' are, instead, cars, planes and ships.
Keywords: Please, add (the source of sampling): biogas, or waste gases
>> added
Line 45: Add some references for the values mentioned.
>> done
Line 55: Please, change the sentence.
>> correct! done.
Line 68: Add some explanation
>> text is changed in this way. The problem we would like to rise is that HCHO is widely present in many products of common use; before 2006, simply, it was not considered dangerous so it was never controlled and monitored. Now there are many problems in ambient air and many industrial applications that ar souces of HCHO emissions.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Please, add more comments ....
>> text reviewed as suggested
4. CONCLUSIONS
Line 360: add some figures
>> text reviewed as suggested
Reviewer 3 Report
Despite the work done, your work requires new additions, in order to bring it to a level that can be published in the journal of your choice. Here are some observations:
1. Lines 17, 32: Please put the correct formula of formaldehyde: CH2O or H−CHO; Make this operation on whole article.
2. Line 46: “in the production of industrial resins, e.g., for particle board and coatings”. This sentence is not clear. Please reformulate it. The “industrial resins” could be urea-formaldehyde or phenol-formaldehyde, and not particleboard, where these resins are used.
3. Line 61-62: “Where part of the methane is transformed into HCHO and not in CO2 and H2O; the average concentration range is between and 50 mg/Nm3 [4], [5].”. Please reformulate this sentence to become an independent sentence, with subject and preached.
4. Abbreviations should not appear in the abstract, and when these abbreviations appear in the research, they must first be the full form and then the short form. For example, in the abstract appears CEN TC 264, which does not have the long form, respectively the European standardization committee, so as not to express its existence within the references, with all the necessary data.
5. The conclusion in the abstract must be changed, clearly specifying the conclusion on the work, but eliminating the part with other research and verifications (which drastically reduces the novelty of the research).
6. Line 42: “formed in the atmosphere”. How is formed?
7. Line 77, Introduction Chapter. Additions must be made regarding the emission of formaldehyde, at least 20 new and current references. I recommend you to do a short review on the determination of formaldehyde emissions from all products such as chipboard, vegetable, etc. The differences compared to these of the formaldehyde produced in the chimneys of factories and incinerators can be exhaustively presented. The main problem of this chapter is its lack of internationalization.
8. Line 89: UNI. It must be specified that it is the Italian standardization association. Do you think the reader is interested that you are part of a group of Italian experts? Not. Please demonstrate greater modesty throughout the work.
9. Line 90: existing methods. What methods? Please specify.
10. Line 116: Please specify the town of laboratories.
11. Line 120. The whole work is full of gaps of lines and to many paragraphs. Please check the whole work and correct it from this point of view. I noticed the same thing in the abstract.
12. Line 194. A modest statistical processing should be introduced here, and then performed and visible in the results part.
13. Fig 2. mg/m3. Put 3 to superscript. The same for Fig. 3.
14. Line 244. All the graphs in fig 4 are blurred and with poor visibility. Please correct them. The problem is that the figures in the form of images are hardly visible when a word document is converted into a .pdf. You can at least increase the contrast of the images and then these figures will become a little more visible.
15. Line 353. H2SO4. Put 4 at subscripted.
16. Line 346. There is a total lack of discussions on the results obtained in the research compared to what others have written before you (the only exception regarding comparisons with a standard). Please expand the discussions with other researches, especially after you add the at least 20 new works in the field.
17. The references of the work are very weak and must be completed to at least 30 level. There is a lot of research in the field of formaldehyde, which must be added, in order for the work to gain international visibility. Also, the writing of these references must be put in line with the journal's requirements.
18. Line 366: Last conclusion “Methods investigation is not complete, and requires further verifications, for this reason in the future new sampling tests will be carried out using bench loops” must be erased. This not only does not benefit your work, but rather decreases its value, showing that the work is not complete and requires many additions. A work that could be published must be complete, whole and independent, even if it presents only some aspects of the problem.
Author Response
Article was completely revised following all the suggestions given by the reviewer.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The authors DO NOT pay enough efforts on this manuscript. The manuscript is still poor organized. The authors should read more high-quality papers to learn how to prepare a qualified paper.
l Paragraph is too short. It is none necessary to be divided with one or two sentences.
l Figures are fuzzy, missing scales (Figures 2 and 3), without organization (Figure 4)…
l Tables 1 and 2 should be listed in one table to be better compared. Volume unit “l” in the tables should be revised to “L”, i.e., capitalized word.
2. This is a research paper, instead of a test report! Therefore, reviews of the reported work in related research field are necessary. Moreover, the authors did not present enough related reported works for this research, to be exact, only half of references, i.e. 7 reported papers, are research works. However, the authors refuse to pay more effort to revise this part.
Author Response
- The authors DO NOT pay enough efforts on this manuscript. The manuscript is still poor organized. The authors should read more high-quality papers to learn how to prepare a qualified paper.
>> text revised.
- Paragraph is too short. It is none necessary to be divided with one or two sentences.
>> editorial comment; text upated.
- Figures are fuzzy, missing scales (Figures 2 and 3), without organization (Figure 4)…
>> figures 2 and 3 have scales (Y1=%, Y2=mg/m3, X=samplings), pls give more info. Figure 4 modification was requested by the reviewer, and is not possible to produce a single figure with the 3 samples due to technical problems. pls explain (...)
- Tables 1 and 2 should be listed in one table to be better compared. Volume unit “l” in the tables should be revised to “L”, i.e., capitalized word.
>> editorial comment; text updated
- This is a research paper, instead of a test report! Therefore, reviews of the reported work in related research field are necessary. Moreover, the authors did not present enough related reported works for this research, to be exact, only half of references, i.e. 7 reported papers, are research works. However, the authors refuse to pay more effort to revise this part.
>> In the field of emission monitoring in general, and for HCHO in particular, there is very little experience, and literature is very limited. no other usable works are known by us (look at our CVs). But, on this argument, I will be happy to discuss.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is Ok.
