Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research s focused only on removal of Cs137. In the affected area of Fukushima prefecture there are other radionuclides such as Sr 90 and many more not mentioned. The question is if the soil even cleared from Cs137 will be accepted for free release or clearance, there is no discussion about this matter at all.

Research indicate that Cs 137 is a long live radionuclide. That is  not correct since compared to other nuclear materials  Cs-137 has relatively short half-lives of 30 years, as used in any other literature known to the reviewer.

It is not clear where this method for Cs removal is proposed to be applied, is it for contamination spread in a wide area of Fukushima prefecture or for the soils already removed and stored in the interim storage, with the idea to decrease storage volume.

It is impossible to conclude benefits of use of the proposed method since there is no any information about the cost or any other economic effectiveness. In addition there is no information about new waste form (cathode with Cs 137) that after being generated needs to be eventually further treated, stored and finally disposed.

Without further analysis proposed above, the paper just describes results of new EK research method for Cs 137 removal which might be of interest for science but not for wider public concern for application. Variety of EK methods were proposed for use just immediately after Fukushima accident but none of such proposal was accepted by the authorities due to lack of analysis of economic effectiveness.

As stated, the submitted  paper is pointing out on interesting research results. However it is recommended to remove from it  anything that suggests wider application of proposed method on Fukushima soils before suggested analysis is done. Abstract and Introduction chapter should be rewritten accordingly.

There are research work done in Russian Federation, Ukraine, USA, France and UK on the variety of EK methods that could be beneficial for use by the authors for continuation or application of the research results.

 

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

It is our great honor to be reviewed our paper (metals-2168332). We would like to express our gratitude to you for your kind suggestions and comments. We have corrected our paper according to your kind suggestions. Details are attached  in pdf. We will be highly grateful if you are kind enough to review it again.

Yours Sincerely,

Mahmudul Kabir

Akita University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is about to produce electrodes to adsorb cesium from pure aqueous solutions. The presentation is fine. The method is very interesting to readers and potential applicants. The preface promises practical applications, but no outdoor experiment performed on real soils is contained in the paper. Thus the abstract is misleading and has to be revised. Probably, something is written in references 16 and 17, but 16 is in Japanese language, and 17 is just a Conference Proceeding, which I could not find by Google

Lines 69-71 (language): "However, due to the possibility of a secondary contamination from wastewater produced from EK treatment, it is difficult to apply this method to a wide area"

Line 153 and 228: Do you mean 6 thousand 9 hundred, or about 7 µs/m? Write maybe 6900

Line 228 (language): "tempered" - do you mean "weakened" ?

 

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

It is our great honor to be reviewed our paper (metals-2168332). We would like to express our gratitude to you for your kind suggestions and comments. We have corrected our paper according to your kind suggestions. The details of the reply is attached to a different file (in pdf). We will be highly grateful if you are kind enough to review it again.

Yours Sincerely,

Mahmudul Kabir

Akita University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is of practical interest and is recommended to publish almost unaltered as the manuscript contains most of crucial data on work completed. Several minor comments are given below which authors are invited to account for on manuscript revision:

First, what is the expected power consumption to perform the clean-up of soil? The authors have provided data on voltage used however there were not given data on current intensities used and times needed to achieve targeted degrees of purification. What is the expected lifetime of usage of electrode and is the electrode expected to degrade during its use?

Second, what is the bulk density of electrode, are there any data on its porosity, mechanical durability? Is it intended for multiple uses or only one time use?

Third, please amend the vertical axis labelling of Fig. 6 where the conductivity is shown in seconds (s) rather than Siemens (S).

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

It is our great honor to be reviewed our paper (metals-2168332). We would like to express our gratitude to you for your kind suggestions and comments. We have corrected our paper according to your kind suggestions (please accept the attached file in pdf). We will be highly grateful if you are kind enough to review it again.

Yours Sincerely,

Mahmudul Kabir

Akita University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf