Kinetics and Adsorption Equilibrium in the Removal of Azo-Anionic Dyes by Modified Cellulose

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

English language and style are minor spell check necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached are the responses to the comments made. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The novelty of this research should be inserted in the text clearly.
2. The advantages and disadvantages of the modified Cellulose as an adsorbent of arsenate should be investigated.
3. Adsorption thermodynamic should be investigated.
4. The stability of the adsorbent should be studied.
5. The regeneration of the adsorbent should be investigated.
6.  The mechanism of dye adsorption by the modified Cellulose should be presented.
7. The introduction section of the manuscript can be strengthened and supported with some papers related to literature: Journal of Hazardous Materials. 378 (2019) 120741; Carbohydrate Polymers. 227 (2020) 115364; Journal of Molecular Liquids. 277 (2019) 310-322.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached are the responses to the comments made. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This work reports a green synthesis of modified cellulose for efficient sorption of Azo-anionic dyes Although, experiments with various parameters have been done, there are still some problems in this manuscript. I would like to encourage the authors to address the below comments (major revision).

 

1. The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.
2. The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.

3.The logic of the current introduction should be revised, and I suggest organizing the Introduction section as following order: importance and meanings, previous studies (literature review), the gaps of previous studies, and objectives of this study.

4. Did the authors check the stability of the as-used dyes  in the function of pH? Any change of structure like an example?

5.The manuscript is readable. I do understand what the authors mean, but Quality of English language needs minor revision. Check the punctuation marks, grammar and spelling errors in the research article thoroughly. Authors need get it checked by someone who is proficient in English language or use any grammar related software instead.

6.The abstract is concise and accurately summarizes the essential information. Abstract should be ‎rewritten to summarize the work; the abstract should briefly state the purpose of the ‎research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented ‎separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

7. The innovation of this study is not well described in "INTRODUCTION" section. Recheck it. The "Introduction" section needs a minor rewrite. You can use the following references that are relevant and up to date to improve the quality of this section.

- A critical review of biosorption of dyes, heavy metals and metalloids from wastewater as an efficient and green process.

- Multifunctional eco-friendly sorbent based on marine brown algae and bivalve shells for subsequent uptake of Congo red dye and copper(II) ions.

- Green synthesis of recyclable iron oxide nanoparticles using Spirulina platensis microalgae for adsorptive removal of cationic and anionic dyes.

- Untapped Sepia Shell–Based Composite for the Sorption of Cationic and Anionic Dyes

8. References should be cross-checked for uniformity and authors must emphasize on latest literatures. Many references are beyond 5 years and should be avoided.
9. Did the authors use the linear form of isothermal equations or the nonlinear form?
10. How did the authors achieve equilibrium time in the experiments?
11. Did the authors study the effect of different NaOH concentrations during cellulose extraction process on the production yield?
12. The discussion of thermodynamics parameters needs to be highlighted.
13. Why the authors didn't study the effect of other co-existing ions on adsorption process?
14. Please improve the conclusion with clear quantitative findings.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Attached are the responses to the comments made. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept