Metallic Iron for Water Remediation: Plenty of Room for Collaboration and Convergence to Advance the Science
, Willis Gwenzi 3 and Chicgoua Noubactep 1,2,4,5,6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented work critically examines the existing ideas concerning metallic iron water remediation. This review is rather polemical than comprehensive. The authors criticize the common ideas about the mechanism of action of the Fe0/H2O system, raise the question of the correct choice of methods for studying such systems, present their own arguments about the relationship between iron oxidative dissolution and contaminant removal in the Fe0/H2O system and substantiate them. From the standpoint of considering different points of view on the problem in order to find its optimal solution, the review is useful and should stimulate the emergence of new experimental works. Therefore, the review can be published in the Water journal.
Some comments:
according to the referee, some subheadings of the sections and the text can be softer, not so emotionally colored: for example, “leading scientist disregard progress”, ‘’thinking mistakes..’’ etc.
you should check the list of references for compliance with the format requirements - why some references are in bold and underlined.
Author Response
water-1694016 - Minor Revisions
Metallic iron for water remediation: Plenty of room for collaboration and convergence to advance the science?
Reviewer 1
The presented work critically examines the existing ideas concerning metallic iron water remediation. This review is rather polemical than comprehensive. The authors criticize the common ideas about the mechanism of action of the Fe0/H2O system, raise the question of the correct choice of methods for studying such systems, present their own arguments about the relationship between iron oxidative dissolution and contaminant removal in the Fe0/H2O system and substantiate them. From the standpoint of considering different points of view on the problem in order to find its optimal solution, the review is useful and should stimulate the emergence of new experimental works. Therefore, the review can be published in the Water journal.
Many thanks for this evaluation!
Some comments:
According to the referee, some subheadings of the sections and the text can be softer, not so emotionally colored: for example, “leading scientist disregard progress”, ‘’thinking mistakes..’’ etc.
We have changed “Leading scientist disregard progress” to “Scientist disregard progress”
You should check the list of references for compliance with the format requirements - why some references are in bold and underlined.
Done, thanks!
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper gives an overview of metallic iron for water remediation. The subject of the paper is interesting. Although the manuscript summarizes the research on the chemical processes controlling the reduction of organic compounds in the Fe0/H2O system, the reviewer feels that the manuscript do not merit publication on Water journal. The literature review of this paper is rather routine and do not give a novel contribution to the field which will be of significant general interest to the journal's wide international readership. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript to be published in Water.
Main comments:
In addition to an overview (as there are others) of metallic iron for water remediation, the Authors aim “… to point out the flaws or limitations of the named concept while demonstrating that even leading scientists or proponents contribute to perpetuating the concept. The objective is not to blame any single colleague, but rather, to correct past errors and lead early career researchers on Fe0/H2O systems on the right path” (Chapter 1).
It is important to distinguish between a “review” which is an article that summarizes the research in a particular topic (using secondary sources) and an article that includes personal conclusions based on facts. In the latter case the purpose may be to convince the reader that the position of the authors on this subject is the best.
The cited references include a nonstandard number of self-citations.
Author Response
The paper gives an overview of metallic iron for water remediation. The subject of the paper is interesting. Although the manuscript summarizes the research on the chemical processes controlling the reduction of organic (from which part of our submission is this information?) compounds in the Fe0/H2O system, the reviewer feels that the manuscript do not merit publication on Water journal. The literature review of this paper is rather routine and do not give a novel contribution to the field which will be of significant general interest to the journal's wide international readership. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript to be published in Water.
The Reviewer can reproduce these comments to any submission. We see no reason to address it!
Main comments:
In addition to an overview (as there are others, sure even from our research group) of metallic iron for water remediation, the Authors aim “… to point out the flaws or limitations of the named concept while demonstrating that even leading scientists or proponents contribute to perpetuating the concept. The objective is not to blame any single colleague, but rather, to correct past errors and lead early career researchers on Fe0/H2O systems on the right path” (Chapter 1).
It is important to distinguish between a “review” which is an article that summarizes the research in a particular topic (using secondary sources) and an article that includes personal conclusions based on facts. In the latter case the purpose may be to convince the reader that the position of the authors on this subject is the best.
There are no best, or wrong view on the science of aqueous iron corrosion! The is its science as started long before 1903. Aqueous Corrosion before 1820. In the 1930s Evans and other optimized available concepts. How can scientist introduce a view disproving these facts and maintain that for 30 years?
The cited references include a nonstandard number of self-citations.
Again, this is not an argument! This can be written to evaluate 1000 other manuscripts. Please specify where a “self-citation” is out of place.
Thank you for your attention,
Dr. Noubactep
Reviewer 3 Report
Review article by Noubactep et al. deals with the use of metallic iron in water remediation processes. The authors make a critical revision of the already published works, trying to juxtapose the described research results, and thus reveal the gaps and inconsistencies contained in the cited contributions. Attention is also paid to the lack of references to the main author's works, despite being a recognized expert in the field.
I consider the entire study to be highly valuable and I fully support its publication in Water.
Author Response
Many thanks for this evaluation!
Reviewer 4 Report
The presented manuscript includes the discussion about “metallic iron for water remediation: plenty of room for collaboration and convergence to advance the science?”
The manuscript idea is interesting.
1) I can suggest to delete the phrase “To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only three research groups have designed experiments to cope with the science of the Fe0/H2O system:”. I guess that much more groups know your idea, e.g. Haitao Wang from Nankai University not only knows this but also mentions it in his papers. Another example, based on my experience, most of the published papers regarding different high-tech sorption materials are not applicable in reality (mostly in terms of techno-economic indicators). Most papers look like research for the sake of publication. Unfortunately, high-impact journals like them, instead of real papers with really new and applicable results forced with patents for invention and positive response from industry for implementation. When I am trying to correct some terms in papers under review some authors don’t agree and referenced some founded articles in the internet. They do not want to refer to standards but refer to waste publications on the Internet. I know some of Elsiever’s high-impact journals where even Editors know and clearly understand that they accept a lot of stupid papers just because they will bring to the growth of the journal impact factor. Unfortunately, this is our reality.
2) Also I should recommend to avoid more than 3 references in one place. Otherwise, the authors should describe the differences.
3) Would be great to add some results to table 2.
4) In addition to those mentioned by the authors. Also, I am not entirely clear about the use by the other authors in their publications on the degradation of methylene blue in concentrations of more than 10 mg/L. Since at concentrations above 10 mg/L, the D = f (C) curve is not linear and becomes almost horizontal. Due to this, the error of the experiment greatly increases.
5) Also I would like to suggest to provide a manuscript with some schemes for better understanding of the processes described.
Author Response
Many thanks for this evaluation!
1) I can suggest to delete the phrase “To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only three research groups have designed experiments to cope with the science of the Fe0/H2O system:”. I guess that much more groups know your idea, e.g. Haitao Wang from Nankai University not only knows this but also mentions it in his papers. Another example, based on my experience, most of the published papers regarding different high-tech sorption materials are not applicable in reality (mostly in terms of techno-economic indicators). Most papers look like research for the sake of publication. Unfortunately, high-impact journals like them, instead of real papers with really new and applicable results forced with patents for invention and positive response from industry for implementation. When I am trying to correct some terms in papers under review some authors don’t agree and referenced some founded articles in the internet. They do not want to refer to standards but refer to waste publications on the Internet. I know some of Elsiever’s high-impact journals where even Editors know and clearly understand that they accept a lot of stupid papers just because they will bring to the growth of the journal impact factor. Unfortunately, this is our reality.
Thanks we have modified and added ten new references [35-45] of papers (not research groups) thinking “outside of the box”.
2) Also I should recommend to avoid more than 3 references in one place. Otherwise, the authors should describe the differences.
We have checked through the manuscript and specified accordingly, Thanks!
3) Would be great to add some results to table 2.
It is not really worth to discuss the results. The key here is that methylene blue (MB) is used a model contaminant is a system without selectivity to MB. Some authors have even discussed MB reduction in Fe0/H2O which is simply thermodynamically impossible, Discussing that will not add value to this manuscript.
4) In addition to those mentioned by the authors. Also, I am not entirely clear about the use by the other authors in their publications on the degradation of methylene blue in concentrations of more than 10 mg/L. Since at concentrations above 10 mg/L, the D = f (C) curve is not linear and becomes almost horizontal. Due to this, the error of the experiment greatly increases.
Table 2 specifies the used concentration. We assumed that dilutions of sample prior to determination were undertaken.
5) Also I would like to suggest to provide a manuscript with some schemes for better understanding of the processes described.
Many thanks, we have added two illustrations, one for the mechanism and one for porosity loss.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer positively considers the addition of Figures 1 and 2.
The addition of section 7 (“Questioning the reputation of journals”) reinforces the idea that this manuscript rather than a review is an article that includes personal conclusions based on facts.
The cited references include a nonstandard number of self-citations.
Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript to be published in Water.
Author Response
The reviewer positively considers the addition of Figures 1 and 2.
We are thankful to the reviewer for this validation.
The addition of section 7 (“Questioning the reputation of journals”) reinforces the idea that this manuscript rather than a review is an article that includes personal conclusions based on facts.
We respect this view. All we have done is the analysis of literature as recommended by experts including Townsend (1968) and Berthod (2009).
The cited references include a nonstandard number of self-citations.
We strongly disagree with the Reviewer. We have listed articles that have pointed out misconducts and Noubactep has been the sole to do that, since 2007. The Reviewer had better tell us which authors were not considered or which references are not appropriate to support the statments.
Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript to be published in Water.
We respect the recommendation!
Thank you for your time!
Dr. Noubactep
