Next Article in Journal
Low-Carbon Governance, Fiscal Decentralization and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment with Chinese Heavy Pollution Enterprises
Previous Article in Journal
Investigate Jobs–Housing Spatial Relationship with Individual-Based Mobility Big Data of Public Housing Tenants: A Case Study in Chongqing, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainability Assessment of the Rare-Earth-Oxide Production Process and Comparison of Environmental Performance Improvements Based on Emergy Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/su14063219
Review Report
sustainability-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

Feasibility of Nickel–Aluminum Complex Hydroxides for Recovering Tungsten Ions from Aqueous Media

Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3219; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063219
by Fumihiko Ogata 1, Saki Kawamoto 1, Ayako Tabuchi 1, Megumu Toda 2, Masashi Otani 2, Takehiro Nakamura 1 and Naohito Kawasaki 1,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3219; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063219
Submission received: 25 February 2022 / Revised: 8 March 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of the Rare Earth Resources, Technology Practices, and Industry)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigate the Feasibility of nickel–aluminum complex hydroxides for recovering tungsten ions from aqueous media. Overall, the structure of this paper is well organized, and the presentation is clear. However, there are still some crucial problems that need to be carefully addressed before a possible publication. More specifically,

  1. A motivation is not so clear to the reviewer. Please clarify the current difficulties in this topic and what kinds of remaining challenges are solved in this paper. What are the newly-added values in the community?
  2. What is the difference between the proposed method and existing methods?
  3. The reviewer is wondering whether this can be performed by using satellite or remote sensing images. Please add the discussion and analyze about feasibility by referring to the papers, g.,10.1109/TGRS.2020.3015157, 10.1109/TGRS.2021.3130716.
  4. A future research direction should be pointed out in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, authors report the adsorption and/or desorption capacity of tungsten ions using nickel–aluminum complex hydroxides. Meanwhile, the effect of temperature, contact time, pH, and coexistence on the adsorption of tungsten ions from aqueous media was demonstrated.  Generally, the manuscript is organized, and the results are meaningful.

  1. In Fig.1, the standard XRD card of nickel hydroxide should be given. In addition, the XRD diffraction peaks of nickel hydroxide shift with the differention of molar ratios of Ni:Al. Why?
  2. The nickel(Ni)-aluminum(Al) complex hydroxides show almost same morphological structure at various molar ratios. However, the amount of tungsten ions adsorbed using NA11 is the highest in all NA adsorbents. Please provide some reasonable explantion on this issue.
  3. In Fig. 3, authors claimed that the quantity of adsorbed tungsten ions increases as the adsorption temperature increases when used NA11. What is the optimal adsorption temperature of adsorbed tungsten ions.
  4. References 4 and 8 are duplicated. Please revise them.
  5. The write-up should be further carefully checked through the whole text for some grammatical errors.
  6. More recent work about application of metal hydroxides is suggested to be cited: Chin. Chem. Lett. 2022, 33, 890-892; Inorg. Chem. Front. 2021, 8, 3162-3166; Inorg. Chem. Front. 2021, 8, 3049-3054;  Inorg. Chem. 2021, 60, 12703-12708

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have well addressed the reviewer's concerns. No more comments.

Back to TopTop