Heavy Metals Removal from Electroplating Wastewater by Waste Fiber-Based Poly(amidoxime) Ligand
, Zhi Jian Wong 1, Mohd Sani Sarjadi 1, Sabrina Soloi 1, Sazmal E. Arshad 1, Kawi Bidin 3 and Baba Musta 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work described in the manuscript “Heavy Metals Removal from Electroplating Wastewater by Waste Fiber-based Poly(amidoxime) Ligand” seems to be interesting, however, the same team of researchers has several similar works already published, the only difference of which is the type of cellulosic material source. Therefore, to be acceptable for publication in Water, the authors must include strong evidence of the contribution of this paper to new knowledge.
The results obtained must be compared with other studies that deal with the sorption of metal ions from water and wastewater.
I also recommend a discussion on the real application of the sorbent, which should include a critical assessment of its environmental impact and sustainability due to the use of several chemicals in the preparation of the sorbent.
L19: Please clarify the concept of “ideal”.
L19-20: Please add the type of waste cellulosic material.
L21 and 25: I recommend avoiding the use of words like “noteworthy” and “outstanding” in the context of the lack of comparison with published results.
L26: The metal composition range of the wastewater and the operative conditions should be indicated because both have strong effects on removal efficiency.
L32 and 34: Literature references are needed here.
L41 and 42: Please clarify this paragraph.
L43 to 45: Please clarify this paragraph.
L45 to 47: Please clarify this paragraph.
L63: Please check “drive”.
L75: Please check “system”.
Section 2: I recommend adding chemicals purity and manufacturer and equipment model and manufacturer.
L82 to 84: I recommend that the authors justify the use of this kind of waste materials.
L94: Please check “… a stirrer, condenser …”
L102: Please check “10. g".
Scheme 1: I suggest the author remove the schema and refer to previous works.
Figure 1: This figure can be removed.
Section 3.2. Is this a “typical result” or it was obtained in the present work? What is the waste material tested?
Section 3.3.1. Please justify the selected pH range. Please check “… different pH ranging from 3-4 …” in line 204.
L208 to 212: How can the “optimal” pH be demonstrated from the results, given that a continuous increase has been observed?
Figure 3: What waste material was used as sorbent?
L221-222: How the referred statement can be related to the results presented?
Section 3.4 and Figure 4: What waste material was tested? Are both materials mixed? If mixed, why?
Table 3: The differences between the two very different experiments are not comparable (meaningless).
L377 and 378: Please define the error functions HYBRID and MPSD.
L385-387: How were significant amphoteric functional groups observed?
L412: Please check “… a s ..”
Section 3.7: The experimental conditions of the practical application must be added in the Materials and Methods section.
L433: Please indicate “the waste fruit” type, after answering my previous question about mixing or not mixing the two waste materials.
L444: I recommend adding the conclusions from section 3.7.
Author Response
Please see attached PDF file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
On account of the manuscript WATER-1178048, entitled “Heavy Metals Removal from Electroplating Wastewater by Waste Fiber-based Poly(amidoxime) Ligand” by Md Lutfor Rahman et al., the authors developed pure cellulosic materials from various waste fiber and conversion of the cellulose into the poly(acrylonitrile)-grafted material, and their physicochemical characteristics was evaluated based on the heavy metals removal. The topic is important to conduct the environmental risk management for heavy metals in the wastewater. The manuscript was well written and designed, and the authors got interesting results. After careful consideration, I made a decision that the manuscript is acceptable for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Please see attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well-organised and written.
The topic of article is important due to the pollution control and removal is one of the main challenges in the current economies in the world, and it also refers to the aquatic environment. The paper presents the usage of waste fruit fiber for the production of a poly(amidoxime) ligand, which was further used for the removal of heavy metals from wastewater.
Some comments to authors:
Page 2, line 73. I suggest to change the report for article. It is a scientific paper, not report. Moreover, in this paragraph the main objective of study should be clearly indicated.
All abbreviations should be explained when used for the first time, also elements.
There is lack of deep discussion and comparison of the obtained results with other authors which have also produced some sorbents to remove the pollutants (including heavy metals) from aquatic environment. This could allow to show the added values of the developed solution.
What are the limitations in the usage of the developed solution?
Conclusions should not be a repetition of the results, but the real conclusions, based on the obtained results. This part should be rewritten.
Author Response
Please attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors’ efforts to answer all questions and to improve the manuscript.
I recommend minor changes and a review of the English, in particular L53-55 (… belongs…; … too acid can cause …), L61 (… wastewater quite hard-working …), L64 (… alternate …). L66 (… have been used to the alkaline …), L68-69 (…certainly heavy metals must be additional elimination up to the discharge standard set up by EPA is precise…), L75 (… resulted the Ni precipitation … was found the gluconic acid …), L82 (… producing …), L85 (Hoverever, …), L86 (… have been utilizing …), L560 “Sudarsan et al. [11] constructed wetland …)
According to the authors’ answers, only two waste sources were tested. So, I recommend stating “two waste fibers” instead of “various waste fiber” (L18, L120, L220)
I suggest replacing “to be perfect” with “to be high” (L21)
Please clarify in the text “About 200 g of both…”. Is it 200 g of each or 200 g in the total? If 200 g is the total, I recommend stating the quantity of each type of fiber.
Author Response
At first, we would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions and comments to improve our manuscripts. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript incorporating all the suggestions (red color text in manuscript). We hope that you will find the revised manuscript suitable for Water, MPDI.
Reviewer 3 Report
Good luck in the further research
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions and comments to improve our manuscripts.
