Permeable Reactive Barrier Remediation Technique Using Carbonized Food Waste in Ground Contaminated with Combined Cu and Pb
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study focuses on the application of in-situ purification techniques, specifically electrokinetic remediation combined with enhancers, to decontaminate soil afflicted with single or multiple heavy metals. The utilization of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) infused with CFW aims to mitigate secondary environmental repercussions, including the propagation of contaminants in soil and groundwater. This article is recommended for a minor revision.
1. In fact, the chemical composition of soil or carbonized food waste controls the chemical adsorption and precipitation reactions of the mixture, which is a key factor affecting the experimental results. Please provide a more detailed chemical composition of soil and carbonized food waste.
2. How is the residual concentration of heavy metals tested? Please provide a detailed experimental process.
3. Suggest changing the title of the Section 3 from "Results" to "Results and Discussion".
4. Figures 3 to 7 should be presented in a clearer form.
5. Regarding the discussion of the results, some conclusions seem to differ from previous research. Please cite literature to support your inference. For example, lines 187-189, 262-264, etc.
6. The "Results" section focuses more on discussing the impact of individual pollutants, please focus more on the composite pollution of copper and lead.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
I am grateful for reviewing my paper. I am revising the paper to reflect your comments, and the content is as follows.
Comments
Point 1: In fact, the chemical composition of soil or carbonized food waste controls the chemical adsorption and precipitation reactions of the mixture, which is a key factor affecting the experimental results. Please provide a more detailed chemical composition of soil and carbonized food waste.
Response 1: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command. (add table 1)
Point 2: How is the residual concentration of heavy metals tested? Please provide a detailed experimental process.
Response 2: Residual heavy metal concentrations were also analyzed by KSTM method. However, the method was recently changed from weak acid extraction method to aqua regia extraction method. Therefore, it is recommended to refer to the latest detection method.
Point 3: Suggest changing the title of the Section 3 from "Results" to "Results and Discussion
Response 3: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 4: Figures 3 to 7 should be presented in a clearer form.
Response 4: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 5: Regarding the discussion of the results, some conclusions seem to differ from previous research. Please cite literature to support your inference. For example, lines 187-189, 262-264, etc.
Response 5: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 6: The "Results" section focuses more on discussing the impact of individual pollutants, please focus more on the composite pollution of copper and lead.
Response 6: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Please include all the experimental methods in Section 2 (e.g., the first paragraph in Section 3.5), and all the experimental results in Section 3 (e.g., the morphological and porous features of CFW in Section 2.1.2).
2. Please carefully check the captions and labels for your figures and rectify all the errors (e.g., Figures 4, 10, 11, 12).
3. In Figure 12, how shall I distinguish Co concentrations from Cu concentrations when they look almost the same?
4. In Section 3.7, it seems that bi-component system resulted in depressed Cu removal and relatively enhanced Pb removal compared to single component systems. It might be attractive to the audience if you could add a disccusion about this interesting phenomenon.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
I am grateful for reviewing my paper. I am revising the paper to reflect your comments, and the content is as follows.
Comments
Point 1: Please include all the experimental methods in Section 2 (e.g., the first paragraph in Section 3.5), and all the experimental results in Section 3 (e.g., the morphological and porous features of CFW in Section 2.1.2).
Response 1: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 2: Please carefully check the captions and labels for your figures and rectify all the errors (e.g., Figures 4, 10, 11, 12).
Response 2: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified and checked according to your command.
Point 3: In Figure 12, how shall I distinguish Co concentrations from Cu concentrations when they look almost the same?
Response 3: In Figure 12, the x-axis is the heavy metal residual divided by the initial concentration. During galvanization, heavy metals move from the anode to the cathode by electromigration and electroosmosis. Therefore, the heavy metals in the x/L=0.1 sample show mostly low values.
Point 4: In Section 3.7, it seems that bi-component system resulted in depressed Cu removal and relatively enhanced Pb removal compared to single component systems. It might be attractive to the audience if you could add a disccusion about this interesting phenomenon.
Response 4: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript submitted by Kim et al., a full investigation was performed to explore the facilitation of CFW in heavy metals adsorption by PRBs. Though the authors showed a brief introduction of the reason they did this work, the story was not organized in a fluent way. Also, I don’t think the manuscript meets the basic requirement of a scientific article, it is like an experimental report.
1. L32. carbonized food waste, except for the 1st use, pls use the abbreviated name CFW throughout the manuscript.
2. L99. What is the meaning of .52？
3. L103. What is the meaning of CL? Pls give the full name for the 1st use.
4. L106. CFW is not the 1st use here. Pls check for similar mistakes, I found lots of similar issues. Return to Q1 and Q3. In the title, it can be given as full name.
5. L132. 3 should be subscript, pls check the similar issues throughout the manuscript. For example, L148.
6. L144. Binary is better than multiple, you only focused on Cu and Pb. Pls check the issues throughout the manuscript.
7. In Figs. 3 & 4, you showed two groups of curves, pls clarify who they are. One for anode while another one for cathode?
8. The authors listed their figures and tables one by one, but we don’t see any discussions. So, pls let us know what are the new findings of your work and discuss your data with previous studies. I think the work is just like an experimental report.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English grammar in this paper must be improved for the reconsideration of publication. The manuscript needs to be edited for grammar and syntax.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
I am grateful for reviewing my paper. I am revising the paper to reflect your comments, and the content is as follows.
Comments
Point 1: L32. carbonized food waste, except for the 1st use, pls use the abbreviated name CFW throughout the manuscript.
Response 1: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 2: L99. What is the meaning of .52？
Response 2: 52 means the number in the reference. Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 3: L103. What is the meaning of CL? Pls give the full name for the 1st use.
Response 3: CL stands for Clay Low compressibility in the Uniform Classification of Soils. Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 4: L106. CFW is not the 1st use here. Pls check for similar mistakes, I found lots of similar issues. Return to Q1 and Q3. In the title, it can be given as full name.
Response 4: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 5: L132. 3 should be subscript, pls check the similar issues throughout the manuscript. For example, L148.
Response 5: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command.
Point 6: L144. Binary is better than multiple, you only focused on Cu and Pb. Pls check the issues throughout the manuscript.
Response 6: In the case of copper, it was confirmed that the removal efficiency was high in the sample contaminated with a single heavy metal. In the case of lead, the removal efficiency was higher in the complex contaminated sample as opposed to copper, and the following results are presented in the manuscript.
Point 7: In Figs. 3 & 4, you showed two groups of curves, pls clarify who they are. One for anode while another one for cathode?
Response 7: In a coin electrolysis experiment, pH is measured at the anode and cathode. This is explained in the manuscript.
Point 8: The authors listed their figures and tables one by one, but we don’t see any discussions. So, pls let us know what are the new findings of your work and discuss your data with previous studies. I think the work is just like an experimental report.
Response 8: Based on the reviewer's comments, I modified according to your command. Related content was added to the results and conclusions of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this version, the authors have revised the manuscript carefully as required. As such, I would like to recommend its potential publication in sustainability as is.
