Comparative Study of Two Organic Wastes as Adsorbents in the Treatment of Water Rich in Nitrogen Compounds
, Maria Raimunda Chagas Silva 1, Fabrício Brito Silva 1, Álvaro Silva Lima 4, Edelvio de Barros Gomes 7 and Rita de Cássia M. de Miranda 8,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The article is interesting because it deals with the important topic of water pollution. The research method used is interesting in terms of research and science, but, despite the authors' suggestions, it is difficult to apply in practice. The article should be published in Water magazine, but I have a few comments.
1. In many places, eg lines 224, 287, 289, table 2 turbidity units are written as UNT. It should be NTU.
2. Lines 235-238 - If tests showing "significant statistical difference" have been performed, the number of samples used for testing should be reported in section 2.2.1.
3. Line 288 - pH showed an increase, not a decrease.
4. How to understand the sentence in lines 412-413. Which nitrogen compounds are we talking about?
5. Lines 421-422 - Pseudomonas bacteria are not involved in the conversion of nitrites to nitrates, only nitrates to nitrites and then to free nitrogen.
Author Response
Review 1.
- In many places, eg lines 224, 287, 289, table 2 turbidity units are written as UNT. It should be NTU.
Aswer: ok, the units have been modified
- Lines 235-238 - If tests showing "significant statistical difference" have been performed, the number of samples used for testing should be reported in section 2.2.1.
Ok, Added information on line 148 of section 2.1
- Line 288 - pH showed an increase, not a decrease.
Ok, was modified
- How to understand the sentence in lines 412-413. Which nitrogen compounds are we talking about?
Ok, compounds were added in line 413
- Lines 421-422 - Pseudomonas bacteria are not involved in the conversion of nitrites to nitrates, only nitrates to nitrites and then to free nitrogen.
Ok, was modified
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The article submitted for review is devoted to the study of alternative wastewater treatment methods that are also cheap and that can be implemented for specific solutions and specific needs.
In my opinion, this is a very valuable study, a valuable article. Research has proven that materials produced at the place of their generation can be successfully used for wastewater treatment processes. However, the article needs a few corrections, mainly editorial ones:
1. I appreciate the esteemed group of authors, but in the affiliation I suggest entering only a scientific or research unit without the authors' academic degrees. These footnotes must be formatted in accordance with the guidelines for authors.
2. Please correct of the chapter 2.2.
3. Please standardize the temperature record; decide whether there is a space between the number and the degree or not. The old formula doesn't recommend spaces, the new one does. So please decide how you will write it (e.g. lines 192 and 196). This needs to be standardized throughout the article.
4. Please standardize the References record in accordance with the guidelines for authors and according to one format.
5. Table 1 requires a description.
6. Please correct the description of figure 6.
7. Please correct the citation on line 423.
8. In lines 428 - 430 the punctuation needs to be corrected.
In my opinion, the prepared publication is a valuable source of information and forms the basis for further research and implementation of new solutions.
Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to continue working on improving the manuscript.
Author Response
Review 2
The article submitted for review is devoted to the study of alternative wastewater treatment methods that are also cheap and that can be implemented for specific solutions and specific needs.
In my opinion, this is a very valuable study, a valuable article. Research has proven that materials produced at the place of their generation can be successfully used for wastewater treatment processes. However, the article needs a few corrections, mainly editorial ones:
- I appreciate the esteemed group of authors, but in the affiliation I suggest entering only a scientific or research unit without the authors' academic degrees. These footnotes must be formatted in accordance with the guidelines for authors.
Answer: ok, it was modified.
- Please correct of the chapter 2.2.
Answer: ok, it was correct
- Please standardize the temperature record; decide whether there is a space between the number and the degree or not. The old formula doesn't recommend spaces, the new one does. So please decide how you will write it (e.g. lines 192 and 196). This needs to be standardized throughout the article.
Answer: ok, it was correct. We accept the new order
- Please standardize the References record in accordance with the guidelines for authors and according to one format.
Answer: ok, it was correct
- Table 1 requires a description.
Answer: ok, it was add
- Please correct the description of figure 6.
Answer: ok, it was correct
- Please correct the citation on line 423.
Answer: ok, it was correct
- In lines 428 - 430 the punctuation needs to be corrected.
Answer: ok, it was correct
In my opinion, the prepared publication is a valuable source of information and forms the basis for further research and implementation of new solutions.
Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to continue working on improving the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted pdf manuscript does not contain tables and figures. On the basis of the text itself, I cannot judge whether the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Please rewrite the abstract. Add some values of adsorbent performances. State the experimental conditions for both adsorbents. Use wastewater instead of water. If believe the sewage/domestic wastewater was treated by both adsorbents.
- As SEM, XRD and FITR were mentioned in the abstract, add some findings, otherwise please remove them from the abstract.
- Instead of using “animal biomass” in the abstract, please be more specific such as “chitosan from shrimp”
- Emphasize the real problem statement. Why do authors study pineapple crown and shrimp chitosan as adsorbents for nutrient removal? What are gaps with other well-known adsorbent such as AC, zeolite, and many other biomass? Emphasize the advantage of these adsorbents compared to others.
- Add scope of the study at the end of the intro section.
- All figures and Tables were not found in the manuscript and submission system.
- Section 2.2 – Authors should analyse ammonia as well. Not only nitrite and nitrate. This is to ensure or to investigate the possibility of ammonia converting to nitrite and nitrate.
- Section 2.5 – Need to thoroughly improve. State model, brand, and country for all instrument/equipments used in this study. How much the weight of each adsorbent used in the treatment? Is control was conducted? How long adsorption experiment was conducted? What are independent parameters in this study and state the range value? Time and substrate should be independent parameters not dependent.
- Is authors study the regeneration of both adsorbents? the regeneration should be discussed in order to ensure the sustainability of the adsorbents compared to others.
- It would be good if authors add SEM, FITR, and XRD before and after treatment. So we can clearly observe and discuss the change after the treatment.
- Add comparison with other adsorbent/technologies and discussed.
- How the studied adsorbents could be produced at a large scale and used for full-scale wastewater application.
- What are the prospects and challenges to use both adsorbents for wastewater treatment?
