Natural and Activated Allophane Catalytic Activity Based on the Microactivity Test in Astm Norm 3907/D3907M-2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper "NATURAL AND ACTIVATED ALLOPHANE CATALITIC ACTIVITY BASED ON THE MICROACTIVITY TEST IN ASTM NORM 3907" has a different title in the webform and in the attached pdf. The cited standard is not referenced at line 58. The same for the Navier Stoke's law at line 59.

Some sentences have "": are these cited from different references? Figure 1 should be improved. The materials and method section seems a list of tests and procedures without argument. In Table 3 please revise the unit of meaure according to the SI. In table 9 values for vibration of molecules of water, groups OH are not declared. Tables 2 and 10 are not clear: what is the unit of measure of the blue columns? And for values? Discussions should precede conclusions. In this paper it is the opposite. Author contributions are not declared. Please revise all the text according to the required journal's style (e.g. equations, captions of figures, tables, some words shown in yellow ...). The References format should be edited according to the journal’s style. Journals’ names must be in abbreviated format. The format for journal papers should be as: ‘Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.’ For style of other kinds of documents, please check template document. Use N-dash for the page range, not hyphen. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available. Some references are incomplete.

Author Response

The paper "NATURAL AND ACTIVATED ALLOPHANE CATALITIC ACTIVITY BASED ON THE MICROACTIVITY TEST IN ASTM NORM 3907" has a different title in the webform and in the attached pdf. The cited standard is not referenced at line 58. The same for the Navier Stoke's law at line 59.

Referenced according to your recommendation

 

Some sentences have "": are these cited from different references? Figure 1 should be improved.

 

Figure 1 was replaced with an investigation result

 

The materials and method section seems a list of tests and procedures without argument.

 

Se describio de esa forma puesto que son ensayos de conocimiento

 

 

 In Table 3 please revise the unit of meaure according to the SI.

 

The unit of measure of surface area is described in m2 / g since it has been analyzed according to the mass of Allophane.

 

In table 9 values for vibration of molecules of water, groups OH are not declared.

 

It is described on line 416

 

Tables 2 and 10 are not clear: what is the unit of measure of the blue columns? And for values?

 

The unit of measure is given in mm corrected in the table in the document

 

 

Discussions should precede conclusions. In this paper it is the opposite.

 

It Changed the discussions it is before the conclusions

 

Author contributions are not declared.

 

Declare on line 867

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is not well written and well organized. The manuscript needs a serious overall revision. There are many editorial and grammar mistakes that makes it very hard to follow. I recommend authors to revise and reorganize the work and submit it again.

The manuscript does not have a good cohesion, especially in introduction and lit. review. Lack of information is clear. What is the application of FCC? The objectives are not defined clearly.

How does the discussion come after the conclusion?

What is the caption of Figure 1? No explanation in the body.

The Figures’ captions are not consistent.

Author Response

This paper is not well written and well organized. The manuscript needs a serious overall revision. There are many editorial and grammar mistakes that makes it very hard to follow. I recommend authors to revise and reorganize the work and submit it again.

It was reviewed and corrected the manuscript.

The manuscript does not have a good cohesion, especially in introduction and lit. review. Lack of information is clear. What is the application of FCC? The objectives are not defined clearly.

Explained in the lines 26 to 34

 

How does the discussion come after the conclusion?

Correted

What is the caption of Figure 1? No explanation in the body.

It is explained on line 87

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The research is qualitatively good and is relevant to science.
Below, I present some comments, that may help in general better understanding and interpretation of your research and this paper.

Lines: 26, 31, 32, 38, 43, 66, etc – unnecessary additional lines used, please delete and correct it.

In the "INTRODUCTION" section, please write exactly what is the "main point of the presented research and article".

There is no doubt that the authors of the article have done a lot of research and this is presented in the text, but the purpose of the research should be clearly stated.

Section 3.1.5. X-ray diffraction (DRX)?

DRX or XRD method?

X-Ray diffraction is a study (generally) termed XRD.

For XRD - please provide information on the database used.

There is no graphical representation of the test results, which would be a more favorable solution for presenting the results.

However, the entire analysis (except for the reference to the specific database) seems to be complete.

Line 456: DRX or XRD?

In my opinion, there is no graphic representation in the form of comparison of samples and analyzes performed, which would be more readable.

Line 544: unnecessary blank line - please delete.

Please order the numbering of equations: (1), (2), then the reference to equations appears: Ec. 4 (Line 707), Ec.5 (line 712), etc.

For some equations, numbering was omitted at all (line: 727, 746).

Then lines: 753-755 - the formula was used, at the same time giving a reference to the literature and again using the numbering of equations as Ec. 10-11 - please explain it or correct it.

Thank You and Best Regards,
Reviewer

Author Response

Lines: 26, 31, 32, 38, 43, 66, etc – unnecessary additional lines used, please delete and correct it.

Eliminated the lines.

In the "INTRODUCTION" section, please write exactly what is the "main point of the presented research and article".

Explained in the lines 50 to 53

There is no doubt that the authors of the article have done a lot of research and this is presented in the text, but the purpose of the research should be clearly stated.

Explain in the introduction

Section 3.1.5. X-ray diffraction (DRX)?

Corrected

DRX or XRD method?

XRD Method

For XRD - please provide information on the database used.

The database is not available because it is a test realized in collaboration with IIGE (Instituto de Investigación Geológico y Energético) and onlu we have the results important to the research.  

Line 456: DRX or XRD?

Corrected

In my opinion, there is no graphic representation in the form of comparison of samples and analyzes performed, which would be more readable.

Line 544: unnecessary blank line - please delete.

Deleted the line

Please order the numbering of equations: (1), (2), then the reference to equations appears: Ec. 4 (Line 707), Ec.5 (line 712), etc.

 

For some equations, numbering was omitted at all (line: 727, 746).

The unnumbered equations are not fundamental to the equation of navier stock were placed to clarify concepts.

Then lines: 753-755 - the formula was used, at the same time giving a reference to the literature and again using the numbering of equations as Ec. 10-11 - please explain it or correct it.

corrected on line 756

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted