Removal of Lead and Cadmium Ions from Aqueous Solution by Adsorption on a Low-Cost Phragmites Biomass
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the present study the characterization of treated phragmites biomass (TPB) and the influence of different factors such as the pH, contact time, TPB dosage and particle size on the removal of lead and cadmium ions from water was investigated. The article is well written and organized and the results are clearly showed. However, results and discussion part looks like a compilation of experimental data without any discussion and comparison with the literature. Kindly provide more discussion and compare your results with literature.
In addition, I would like to suggest the authors to consider all the below mentioned comments in their revisions:
1. The water used to study the factors affecting the metal ion removal contains 50 ppm metals ion, but it is not clear if it is 50 ppm of each metal ion or the total concentration of metal ions. Please clarify it. Additionally, in this study in each figure error bars are shown but it is not mentioned how many times was carried out each experiment. Mention it if each study was carried out in duplicate or triplicate.
2. Some figures and tables are not well cited in the text, for example at line 109 figure 2 and at line 112 figure 3 should be appeared without parenthesis. Check Figure and Table citations.
3. Phragmites some times is written in italics and sometimes not (line 109). Please be consistent and write it in italics.
4. Quality of figures should be improved, specially Figure 8 that contain 4 figures and each one should be differentiated as 8 a, 8 b,… Furthermore, graduation marks in the figures facilitate the lecture to the reader. Besides in Figure 9b the X axis do not appeared.
Author Response
- Comparison table has been added to the manuscript in addition to detailed interpretations of results.
In addition, I would like to suggest the authors to consider all the below mentioned comments in their revisions:
1. The water used to study the factors affecting the metal ion removal contains 50 ppm metals ion, but it is not clear if it is 50 ppm of each metal ion or the total concentration of metal ions. Please clarify it. Additionally, in this study in each figure error bars are shown but it is not mentioned how many times was carried out each experiment. Mention it if each study was carried out in duplicate or triplicate.
Each metal has been studied separately; each measurement has been done in triplicate. This has been mentioned in the manuscript in experimental part and figures captions.
2. Some figures and tables are not well cited in the text, for example at line 109 figure 2 and at line 112 figure 3 should be appeared without parenthesis. Check Figure and Table citations.
All figure and tables citations have been revised and corrected according to this comment.
3. Phragmites some times is written in italics and sometimes not (line 109). Please be consistent and write it in italics.
Manuscript has been corrected according to this comment
4. Quality of figures should be improved, specially Figure 8 that contain 4 figures and each one should be differentiated as 8 a, 8 b,… Furthermore, graduation marks in the figures facilitate the lecture to the reader. Besides in Figure 9b the X axis do not appeared.
Figures has been modified and corrected according to this comment
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by A. N. Amro et al. present an experimental study on the removal of lead and cadmium ions from water by treated TPB. This paper is not carefully written since there are many grammar problems in wording and typos in mathematical equations, tables, and figures. This paper should be reorganized and rewritten. Based on the overall quality of this paper, it is my judgment that this paper in current form is unsuitable for publication in "Processes ".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to thank you for your valuable comments that enhance authors to modify the manuscript.
Regarding language problems, the manuscript has been submitted to English language specialist who review the paper and modify its language.
Typos errors in mathematical equations have been corrected according to your comment
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version has gained a significant improvement. I think this version can be accepted for publication in "Processes" after some minor revisions as follows:
1. The abbreviation for "Energy dispersive x-ray analysis" is somehow confused. In line 14, 75 and 130, it is "EDS", while in line 110 and 115, it is "EDX". They had better be consistent.
2. Line 15:“the presence of functional groups that may responsible of metal adsorption...." should be "... may be responsible for metal ..."
3. Line 17: BET should be the abbreviation of "Brunauer-Emmett-Teller". So it can be expressed as Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area analysis.
4. Line 37: "ecosystem pollution with heavy metals is becoming (a) crucial environmental problem".
5. Line 43: "Cadmium (Cd) is not (an) essential metal for human being"
6. Line 72: "Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra were ....." should be "Fourier transform infrared spectra (FTIR)"
7. In Line 78, 190 and 235, "pb" should be Pb
8. In line 84, 87 and 89, a certain amount (g) of adsorbent is corresponding to W in equation (1)?
9. Line 95: "Fourier transfer infra-red (FTIR):" Is it a typo?
10. Line 137: What is "AAS"?
11. Line 220: What is the difference between pseudo first order kinetics and "authentic" first order kinetics?
12. Line 227: k1 should be k subscript 1.
13. Line 234: "in (Figure 9 c)." No brackets.
14. Line 238: "difference between Qe calc and Qe Exp". Not formal in a research paper.
15. The conclusion part is too weak and needs improvement.
Once authors can response all of the above issues, it can be accepted “as it is ” without any further review by me.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for his valuable comments, please find the reply point by point in addition to the revised manuscript attached.
1. The abbreviation for "Energy dispersive x-ray analysis" is somehow confused. In line 14, 75 and 130, it is "EDS", while in line 110 and 115, it is "EDX". They had better be consistent.
ü Manuscript has been revised and corrected according to this comment; EDX has been converted to EDS since it is more common in literature.
2. Line 15:“the presence of functional groups that may responsible of metal adsorption...." should be "... may be responsible for metal ..."
ü Manuscript has been revised and corrected according to this comment
3. Line 17: BET should be the abbreviation of "Brunauer-Emmett-Teller". So it can be expressed as Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area analysis.
ü Brunauer-Emmett-Teller" has been added to the manuscript
4. Line 37: "ecosystem pollution with heavy metals is becoming (a) crucial environmental problem".
ü Word has been revised and corrected
5. Line 43: "Cadmium (Cd) is not (an) essential metal for human being"
ü It has been corrected according to the comment
6. Line 72: "Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra were ....." should be "Fourier transform infrared spectra (FTIR)"
ü (FTIR) is for Fourier transform infrared, “spectra” is not abbreviated
7. In Line 78, 190 and 235, "pb" should be Pb
ü Manuscript has been revised and corrected according to this comment
8. In line 84, 87 and 89, a certain amount (g) of adsorbent is corresponding to W in equation (1)?
ü (g) In line 84 has been converted to (W) according to the comment
9. Line 95: "Fourier transfer infra-red (FTIR):" Is it a typo?
ü “infra-red” has been corrected to be “infrared”
10. Line 137: What is "AAS"?
ü Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS), it is abbreviated in experimental part line 69 according to this comment
11. Line 220: What is the difference between pseudo first order kinetics and "authentic" first order kinetics?
ü Both are mathematical expressions of adsorption kinetics, pseudo is he modified form of original expression
12. Line 227: k1 should be k subscript 1.
ü It has been corrected to be subscript
13. Line 234: "in (Figure 9 c)." No brackets.
ü Brackets have been removed
14. Line 238: "difference between Qe calc and Qe Exp". Not formal in a research paper.
ü According to the difference between Qe calc and Qe Exp values it can be decided if adsorption correlate with pseudo first order kinetic model or pseudo second order kinetic model.
15. The conclusion part is too weak and needs improvement.
ü Conclusion has been revised and modified according to this comment.
