Implementation of Modified Acacia Tannin by Mannich Reaction for Removal of Heavy Metals (Cu, Cr and Hg)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 1 Line 37  researches are focused on the 

Page 2 Line 63  with constant agitation

Page 4 line 127 the wide and intense band

Page 6 Chromium

Page 9 Line 245 of removal

           Line 260 that the negatively

Page 10 mercury were

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thak you  very much for your time to review the paper.

 

All suggestions were corrected line by line.

 

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

English language should be significantly improved.

Chapter "Physicochemical parameters" should bear chapter number.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you very much for you time to review the paper.

 

An english edition was mede to  increase its quality and the chapter of physicochemical parameter was added.

 

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript reports on work that is highly relevant to the field of Water. The work is therefore of a timely nature.

The coverage and content of the manuscript are balanced and both methodology and results are clearly described. However, there are still a few issues that need to be clarified.

I would recommend that the manuscript should be accepted after major revision.

Manuscript should be carefully edited. 

p. 2 l. 56  "infrared spectopometry" It should read: infrared spectrometry.

p. 3 lines 86-87 For each test, 400 mL of industrial wastewater was supplemented with metals like copper, chromium and mercury.

What kind of industry? This should be clearly stated. what kind of chemicals was added as the source of metal? Please clarify.

p.4, l. 116 MAT (Pasto y Jhonson) p. 9 line 234: pH (4, 7 y10). This is not clear. 

p. 8 line 229 Table 3 presents the chemical composition of the wastewater. Is it the same as used in the study?  This should be clearly stated.

Authors determined TSS or SS? It is not clear please explain 

Fig. 6 Maybe the figure will be more clear if the bars backgroung will not have so many details.

lines 243, 251, 258: It is: Figure 6a. Shows (...) It should reads " Figure 6a. shows "

Referenced should be prepared as it is shown in the Authors guidance

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you very much for your time to review the paper.

 

p. 2 l. 56  It was changed to infrared spectrometry.

p. 3 lines 86-87 For each test, 400 mL of industrial wastewater was supplemented with metals like copper, chromium and mercury.

The wastewater used was from a maquiladora industry and it was include in the text of the paper.

When the industrialwatewater used did not have enough concnetration of the metals under study, they would be added from a Merck analytical standard. It was clarify at the paper.

p.4, l. 116 MAT (Pasto y Jhonson) p. 9 line 234: pH (4, 7 y10). This is not clear.

The corresponding cahnges were made to clarify.

 

p. 8 line 229 Table 3 presents the chemical composition of the wastewater. Is it the same as used in the study?  This should be clearly stated.

Yes, it is the same insdustrial water and was clarify in the text of the paper.

 

Authors determined TSS or SS? It is not clear please explain

 

We determine TSS and it was corrected in the text of the paper.

Fig. 6 Maybe the figure will be more clear if the bars backgroung will not have so many details.

It was increased.

lines 243, 251, 258: It is: Figure 6a. Shows (...) It should reads " Figure 6a. shows "

The correction was made.

 

Referenced should be prepared as it is shown in the Authors guidance.

References were modified.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors improved the manuscript. Great job. I like how it turns