Biodegradation and Absorption Technology for Hydrocarbon-Polluted Water Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Findings are interesting, but there are some corrections I recommend the authors should look into to avoid getting the readers confused.

Abstract –

Need fine tuning of English and presentation

Line 32-33 - Wastewater to be treated was recirculate throw each bioreactor in a closed cycle

Line 34- e.g. retention rate was upper than 90% and  

Introduction-

Line 48 – are all hydrocarbons either toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic?

Introduction is superficial, authors need to show the recent work about sorbents, what efficiencies reported, examples of sorbents, sustainability, what they selected the particular materials etc.

Furthermore, the bioremediation section is poorly written

Line 62 - The biological process of bioremediation removes the majority of environmental hydrocarbons through the action of microorganisms, which mineralize or convert organic compounds into less noxious and dangerous substances and need to be indigenous to the polluted water.  

This is very vague. Doesn’t explain the value of your work to the readers. Authors need to do a critical literature analysis for what’s been done, what hydrocarbons are susceptible for bacterial biodegradation, are there any particular bacteria, indigenous bacterial dynamics???? What’s the importance ?

Line 65 - In addition, it has been reported that these microorganisms immobilized into the biofilms often enhance their hydrocarbon-degrading capacity.

How do they do that? This needed to be explained to the readers.

 

Materials and methods

 

Line 77- recirculate for 7 days through – recirculated for 7 days through

Line 78 – what is the room temperature? Did you measure this? Any fluctuations recorded?

Line 79 - A control assay was performed with an additional 1L glass graduated cylinder without carrier working under the conditions above described.

 

Is this an assay ?

Last part of the sentence is very confusing.

 

What is pH stands in the figure 1 ?

Author Response

Thank you so much for your interesting comments. We have modified the manuscript according your suggestions.

In attached document I detail point by point the major modifications done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “Biodegradation and sorption technology for hydrocarbon-polluted water treatment” is quite interesting and helpful for those of people who are in the research field of the treatment of polluted water. However, the explanation of each results is not enough to support the significance and novelty behind this work. Thus, the critical issues and comments below should be largely addressed for publication in Applied Sciences.

 

There are lot of grammatical errors and typos even the size of letters. It needs an extentive English editing services. The manuscript might be more strengthen by in-depth explanation and discussion of each results. Furthermore, the simple interconnectivity between experimental results and comprehensive meaning also should be mentioned at the end of phrases expressing each corresponding result. There are numerous previous studies reporting the treatment of hydrocarbon using polypropylene and granulated cork. The novelty and significance of this work should be addressed by comparing those of previous studies with this work. The logic behind this work is not clear. The author should address the advances or advantages of this work throughout the manuscript. The Introduction Section is not sufficient to support the background of this work.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your interesting comments. We have modified the manuscript according your suggestions.

In attached document I detail point by point the major modifications done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

A lot of effort has been made to address the comments which were asked by reviewers. Thus, I agree that this manuscript is enough to publish in Applied Science.