Multiresponse Performance Evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the Optimal Elimination of Pb (II) from Industrial Wastewater by Adsorption Using Vine Shoot Activated Carbon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors of the manuscript "Multiple response performance evaluation and life cycle evaluation for the optimal removal of Pb(II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using sprout activated carbon" I want to thank you for your contribution to this journal. About your manuscript, I want to make the following comments:

1. The introduction does not mention the different adsorbents that have been used in the adsorption of Pb(II)

2. About the carbon it is not mentioned because it is considered the most used adsorbent, what are its advantages and disadvantages, in addition to its origin, since the carbon can be chemically synthesized or obtained from the calcination of different natural sources?

3. The methodology does not mention the brands, CAS number and strength of the different reagents used in the study

4. On the basis that the different pH values were chosen,. The salt used for the Pb adsorption experiments does not cause a Pb(solid) precipitation. It is recommended to verify this by making a Pb(II) species diagram.

5. In the results it is not observed how a removal percentage of more than 90% was obtained, since, in various tables, the ranges go from 44.33% to 86%. Please specify how this result was obtained

6. In the discussion, there is no mention of a comparison with respect to other adsorbents used in the adsorption of Pb

 

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the author response of the review comments of the manuscript titled: “Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon.”

With my bests regards,

 

Marina Corral Bobadilla

PhD. Industrial Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of La Rioja

C/José de Calasanz 31,  
26004. Logroño - La Rioja. Spain  

Phone. +34 941299274
Fax +34 941299794

e-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript deals with the multi-response performance evaluation and life cycle assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb(II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon. Before acceptance the manuscript need the major revision to be published in « Sustainability». This work is somewhat interesting and worthy of publication; however, the following remarks must be taken into account:

 

1. The abstract should be rewritten by summarizing the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions.  The first three sentences need to be revised.

2. Preparation of the vine shoots activated carbon is a complex process. How were the conditions chosen? For example, why were the vine shoots soaked in a ZnCl₂ solution for 24 h?

3. Section 2 "Materials and Methods" should describe the technical data, the analysis of the data is recommended in section 3. Thus table 5, presented in section 3, is discussed in section 2. It is necessary to clearly structure the article.

4. Section 2 "Materials and Methods" should describe all research methods. Section 2 should describe how the pH was determined, if instrumentally, then indicate the instrument.  Section 2 should be supplemented with a description of SEM-EDX Analysis.

5. Section 2.5. It is necessary to describe in more detail the conditions for determining the concentration of lead, the error of the method.

6. The results of SEM-EDX analysis can be more informative. For example, why are other elements not determined by EDX analysis? Has been the amount of Pb(II) sorbed per 1 gram of activated carbon determined?

7. Summarize the major findings and future perspectives of the present work in conclusion section. The conclusion section is written very extensively. I propose to move part of the material to section 3 "Results and their discussion" or to separate a separate section "Discussion of the results".

8. Authors should carefully check the correctness of the design of the References in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

 9. I found too much typing and grammatical mistakes in the present manuscript. Please read carefully and correct it. For example

Line 30: extra space wastewater

Line 133: no subscripts

Table 5 is mentioned much earlier than Table 4 and others.

I found too much typing and grammatical mistakes in the present manuscript. Please read carefully and correct it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the author response of the review comments of the manuscript titled: “Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon.”

With my bests regards,

 

Marina Corral Bobadilla

PhD. Industrial Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of La Rioja

C/José de Calasanz 31,  
26004. Logroño - La Rioja. Spain  

Phone. +34 941299274
Fax +34 941299794

e-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the review is a manuscript entitled "Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon". The topic of this work is relevant to the field of the Sustainability journal. The paper is well structured, and methods, research process, results, and discussion are extensively described. The description, however, seems confusing and complicated at times. In the methodological part, a question arises: how the conditions of the experiments were selected? Were they made in accordance with the applicable standards?

Farther, have similar studies been performed by other researchers? If not, this innovative/pioneering aspect of the work should be clearly emphasized. If so, the discussion should be more refined and based on a comparison of the work with the research of other authors on this topic. It should be indicated the elements that distinguish it from the achievements of other researchers in this field. What's more, the conclusions section should be rewritten, because it is largely a repetition of the information given in the previous sections of the work. This section should contain a brief explanation of the significance and implications of the issue reported.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the author response of the review comments of the manuscript titled: “Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon.”

With my bests regards,

 

Marina Corral Bobadilla

PhD. Industrial Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of La Rioja

C/José de Calasanz 31,  
26004. Logroño - La Rioja. Spain  

Phone. +34 941299274
Fax +34 941299794

e-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Title: Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon

Article Type: full article

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2482272-v1

 

In this article a cost-effective method of removing heavy metals from wastewater has emerged, which involves adsorbing activated carbon from vine buds. This study proposes to use life cycle assessment, multi-reaction surfaces with desirable functions to improve the adsorption process. The authors selected three input variables which are lead concentration, pH, and the amount of activated carbon from vine shoots. The results showed that 52.62% of the lead was removed with minimal environmental impact.

 

 My recommendation is that the authors carefully consider the below points, revise appropriately.

1. The authors should consider some representative word in the keywords. Some less prominent key words could be replaced by significant word.

2. Page 3 line 99~100; my suggestion is that the authors in this article explain in detail whether the regression model used is superior to other models. And the authors should emphasize the contribution of this method which superiority than the others.

3. Page 3 line 111; in the section of this article "2.1. Chemicals and Techniques” My suggestion is that authors must write in accordance with the requirements of the journal, in a format that has already been published in a similar article in the journal. Particularly, the brand and purity of each drug must be clearly labeled.

4. Page 16 line 498; the authors find the pH value of the solution did not significant effect. My suggestion is whether the authors can compare other published literature to find results similar to this study. For the result is very interesting and valuable.

5. Continuing the previous opinion, if the pH parameter does not affect the adsorption result, then the activated carbon has the ability to adsorb lead ions in the aqueous solution and become an important factor. My suggestion is that the authors should distinguish the activated carbon in this paper from other activated carbon adsorption lead ions in aqueous solutions published in past journals.

The format of each figure and table must be checked before publication, and must meet the requirements of this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, find attached the author response of the review comments of the manuscript titled: “Multi-Response performance evaluation and Life Cycle Assessment for the optimal elimination of Pb (II) from industrial wastewater by adsorption using vine shoots activated carbon.”

With my bests regards,

 

Marina Corral Bobadilla

PhD. Industrial Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of La Rioja

C/José de Calasanz 31,  
26004. Logroño - La Rioja. Spain  

Phone. +34 941299274
Fax +34 941299794

e-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors of the manuscript Multiple Response Performance Evaluation and Life Cycle Analysis for Optimal Pb Elimination (II ) of wastewater by adsorption with activated carbon from vine shoots, I would like to comment that your work can be considered for publication in the form in which it is currently presented since the changes made to the manuscript were significant.

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend accepting the article in present form

No