Application of Hollow Fiber Membrane for the Separation of Carbon Dioxide from Atmospheric Air and Assessment of Its Distribution Pattern in a Greenhouse
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting and well-written article dealing with a topic of scientific and application interest.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for authors
Interesting and well-written article dealing with a topic of scientific and application interest.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for considering our manuscript and for the precious time you spent reviewing it. We are thankful for giving thoughtful comment on it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled: "Application of hollow fiber membrane for the separation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air and assessment of its distribution pattern in a greenhouse" deals with the topic of CO2 separation with the use of a polysulfone hollow fiber membrane in an experimental greenhouse. The results are nice, and they depict a lot of essential aspects of everyday life. A few things arise that need to be optimized before the suggestion of the article for acceptance
- What is the exact polysulfone type used?
- What was the process for the membrane fabrication?
- Please provide details like solution concentration, precipitation temperature and bath, etc.
- Did the authors compare the performance of the membranes with the feed from the inner side for pressure below 1 Bar and the same for the outside? Is there an expected exact result, or the inside-outside separation can provide better performance?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for authors
The manuscript entitled: "Application of hollow fiber membrane for the separation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air and assessment of its distribution pattern in a greenhouse" deals with the topic of CO2 separation with the use of a polysulfone hollow fiber membrane in an experimental greenhouse. The results are nice, and they depict a lot of essential aspects of everyday life. A few things arise that need to be optimized before the suggestion of the article for acceptance.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for considering our manuscript and for the precious time you spent reviewing it. We made the changes in the manuscript according to the suggestion and comments provided. Overall, we corrected and tried to clarify the mistakes identified throughout the manuscript.
Point 1: What is the exact polysulfone type used?
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. The hollow fiber composite membrane was prepared with a special engineering plastic with a polysulfone polymer material (polysolfone Udel P-1700) and a thermoplastic polymer chemical (mentioned on page number 3 and lines 94-96 of the manuscript).
Point 2: What was the process for the membrane fabrication?
Response 2: Thank you for your invaluable comment. We described the membrane fabrication process in our revised mansucript (mentioned on page number 3 and lines 97-105 of the manuscript).
Point 3: Please provide details like solution concentration, precipitation temperature and bath, etc.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We described the details like solution concentration, precipitation temperature and bath, etc in our revised mansucript (mentioned on page number 3 and lines 97-105 of the manuscript).
Point 4: Did the authors compare the performance of the membranes with the feed from the inner side for pressure below 1 Bar and the same for the outside? Is there an expected exact result, or the inside-outside separation can provide better performance?
Response 4: Thanks for your comment. In this study we did not compare the performance of the membranes with the feed from the inner side for pressure below 1 Bar and the same for the outside. Therefore we cannot confirm the that the reviewer mentioned in his comments. In our next experiment, we have a plan to check it in an experiemntal greenhosue.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The authors in this study have presented an interesting dual approach that undertaken (1) to separate CO2 from atmosphere air using a hollow fiber membrane and finally (2) to assess the distribution pattern of CO2 and temperature by supplying the separated 90 CO2 in an experimental greenhouse.
The following comments and suggestions could be useful in improving the clarity of the presented study.
1- The circulation of the air inside the greenhouse in a pulse or continuous mode may help in the homogenization of both CO2 concentration and temperature.
2. humidity is a very important factor affecting the keeping of the greenhouse temperature and also may solvation of the CO2 gas and consequently its concentration.
A discussion of the above-mentioned factors that may be considered for further studies is recommended.
A minor revision is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for authors
The authors in this study have presented an interesting dual approach that undertaken (1) to separate CO2 from atmosphere air using a hollow fiber membrane and finally (2) to assess the distribution pattern of CO2 and temperature by supplying the separated 90 CO2 in an experimental greenhouse.
Response: Dear reviewer, we want to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript and for giving it your attention. We have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript based on your suggestions and comments. We have made an effort to correct and clarify any errors that were identified throughout the manuscript.
Point 1: The following comments and suggestions could be useful in improving the clarity of the presented study.
1- The circulation of the air inside the greenhouse in a pulse or continuous mode may help in the homogenization of both CO2 concentration and temperature.
- humidity is a very important factor affecting the keeping of the greenhouse temperature and also may solvation of the CO2 gas and consequently its concentration.
A discussion of the above-mentioned factors that may be considered for further studies is recommended.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Yes, it is possible. However, the main objectives of the study are (1) to separate CO2 from atmosphere air using a hollow fiber membrane and finally (2) to assess the distribution pattern of CO2 and temperature by supplying the separated CO2 in an experimental greenhouse. Humidity is also a very important factor affecting the keeping of the greenhouse temperature and also may solvation of the CO2 gas and consequently its concentration. In our next experiment, we have a plan to consider the above mentioned issues. We are sorry and sincerely apologize for not being able to address the two comments mentioned above in this current study.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Manuscript entitled “Application of hollow fiber membrane for the separation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air and assessment of its distribution pattern in a greenhouse” submitted by Na Eun Kim, Jayanta Kumar Basak and Hyeon Tae Kim, can be considered for publication in Atmosphere Journal, after a major revision.
Here is a list of my specific comments:
1. Page 1, line 12: Replace “In this experiment” with “In this study”.
2. Page 1, Introduction: This section should be reorganized. The most important aspects related to this topic should be clearly presented and discussed. Pay attention on the advantages of the proposed method compared with those described in the literature.
3. Page 2, Figure 1: This figure should be moved into Supplementary materials.
4. Page 3, 2. Materials and Methods: This section should be reorganized. Pay attention on technical details and provide a clear presentation of the experimental methodology used in this study. The equipments and methods should be also clearly described. Delete general observations/comments, because are irrelevant here.
5. Page 3, Figure 2: This figure should be moved into Supplementary materials
6. Page 5, Figures 4 and 5: These figures should be moved into Supplementary materials
7. Page 6, 3. Results and Discussion: The results included in each subsection should be clearly presented and discussed. The efficiency of hollow fiber membrane must be clearly highlighted.
8. Page 13, References: The number of references is too high and should be reduced.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for authors
Manuscript entitled “Application of hollow fiber membrane for the separation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air and assessment of its distribution pattern in a greenhouse” submitted by Na Eun Kim, Jayanta Kumar Basak and Hyeon Tae Kim, can be considered for publication in Atmosphere Journal, after a major revision.
Response: Dear reviewer, we are appreciative of the time and attention you have given to our manuscript. We have taken the feedback provided and made the appropriate changes in the manuscript. We have also made an effort to rectify and clarify any misconceptions throughout the manuscript. Thank you again for considering our work.
Point 1: Page 1, line 12: Replace “In this experiment” with “In this study”
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We checked and corrected in our revised manuscript (mentioned on page number 1 and lines 12-13).
Point 2: Page 1, Introduction: This section should be reorganized. The most important aspects related to this topic should be clearly presented and discussed. Pay attention on the advantages of the proposed method compared with those described in the literature.
Response 2: Thank you for your invaluable comment. We already discussed the advantages of the proposed method compared with those described in the literature in introduction part (mentioned on page number 2-3 and lines 59-91) and Implications and limitations of HF applications in the enhancement of CO2 and temperature in greenhouse part (mentioned on page number 12-13 and lines 353-409).
Point 3: Page 2, Figure 1: This figure should be moved into Supplementary materials.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We are sorry and sincerely apologize for not being able to address the comments regarding the Figure 1. All the authors as well as other peer-reviewer considered the current position of the Figure 1 is well stated.
Point 4: Page 3, 2. Materials and Methods: This section should be reorganized. Pay attention on technical details and provide a clear presentation of the experimental methodology used in this study. The equipments and methods should be also clearly described. Delete general observations/comments, because are irrelevant here.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We revised the section and paid more attention on technical details and provide a clear presentation of the experimental methodology used in this study (mentioned on page number 3 and lines 94-105).
Point 5: Page 3, Figure 2: This figure should be moved into Supplementary materials.
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We are sorry and sincerely apologize for not being able to address the comments regarding Figure 2. All the authors as well as other peer-reviewer considered the current position of the Figure 2 is well stated.
Point 6: Page 5, Figures 4 and 5: These figures should be moved into Supplementary materials.
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We regret and offer our sincere apologies for not addressing the comments regarding Figures 4 and 5. After careful review and consideration by all authors and peer-reviewers, we have decided that the current placement of Figures 4 and 5 are appropriate.
Point 7: Page 6, 3. Results and Discussion: The results included in each subsection should be clearly presented and discussed. The efficiency of hollow fiber membrane must be clearly highlighted.
Response 7: Thank you for your comments. We clearly presented and discussed the results in the Results and Discussion Part of the manuscript. However, in this study, we did not examine the efficiency of the HF membrane, instead our objectives were (1) to separate CO2 from atmosphere air using a hollow fiber membrane and finally (2) to assess the distribution pattern of CO2 and temperature by supplying the separated CO2 in an experimental greenhouse, which we considered are sufficiently described in the Results and Discussion section. In future experiments, we will consider measuring the efficiency of hollow fiber membrane.
Point 8: Page 13, References: The number of references is too high and should be reduced.
Response 8: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. The references mentioned in this manuscript are directly related and supported to our study. All the authors considered the references mentioned in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
All my previous remarks and comments have been considered into new version of the manuscript. It means that reviewed manuscript meets the criteria and in my opinion can be published as original paper in Atmosphere Journal.
