Adsorption of Yttrium Ions on 3-Amino-5-Hydroxypyrazole Impregnated Bleaching Clay, a Novel Sorbent Material
, Mohamed F. Cheira 1, Mohamed A. Hassanin 1, Hamed I. Mira 1, Saad A. Mohamed 2, Mayeen Uddin Khandaker 3, Hamid Osman 4, Emad M. Eed 5, M. I. Sayyed 6,7 and Mohamed Y. Hanfi 1,8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The format of the manuscript is strange. Many equations are not aligned. Please carefully revise it.
2. Fig.7 is not clear. Please add the resolution.
3. Some units are wrong. For example, J.mol–1.K–1 is wrongly written.
4. Many new references about adsorption are ignored.
Ref.:
Interface Characterization Between Polyethylene/ Silica in Engineered Cementitious Composites by Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Molecules. 2019, 16;24(8):1497.
Molecular dynamics study of an amorphous polyethylene/silica interface with shear tests. Materials, 2018, 11(6): 929.
Author Response
Firstly, I would like to present my gratitude to the reviewer for his time and comments. The manuscript has been revised and updated based on the suggestions of the reviewer.
- The format of the manuscript is strange. Many equations are not aligned. Please carefully revise it.
The equations were revised and some of the equations were removed.
- 7 is not clear. Please add the resolution.
New figure with high resolution has been added (Fig 7)
- Some units are wrong. For example, J.mol–1.K–1 is wrongly written.
The unit has been fixed properly to J.mol-1.K-1 (text line 390)
- Many new references about adsorption are ignored.
Ref.:
Interface Characterization Between Polyethylene/ Silica in Engineered Cementitious Composites by Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Molecules. 2019, 16;24(8):1497.
Molecular dynamics study of an amorphous polyethylene/silica interface with shear tests. Materials, 2018, 11(6): 929.
The new suggested references have been added (references 15 and 16).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents research on adsorption of yttrium ions on 3-amino-5-hydroxypyrazole impregnated bleaching clay. The presentation of methods and scientific results in the current form is satisfactory for publication in the Applied Sciences journal. The minor and significant drawbacks to be addressed can be specified as follows:
1. Page 4, line 174. 122.2 ---> 122.20. See also line 209.
2. Fig. 1: a), b),… too small fonts. Fig. 1(c), symbols: to small symbols – see other panels. Fig. 1(e), x-axis: Temperature, C ---> Temperature, oC.
3. Page 8, line 270. “correlation coefficient (R2)”??? It is not true - R2 is the determination coefficient.
4. Tabs. 2 and 3. The use of so many models to describe experimental data - one measurement - is pointless and beyond scientific studies. Triumph of form over content.
5. Tab. 3, Experimental capacity. Unity?
6. Fig. 5. (i) The way this figure was made does not match the previous ones. See also Fig. 8. (ii) The title of x-axis is incorrect.
7. Page 15, lines 459-465. The values of the surface area are very small. These values are at the limit of the accuracy of the determination of surface areas by the instruments. What is the accuracy of measuring the surface areas of this instrument? I'd like to see adsorption isotherms, for example in Supporting Information. This remark made it a major revision.
8. Fig. 7. The resolution scale of the measurement cannot be seen in the panels. To be able to compare images, the scale must be the same in all three panels.
Author Response
The English language of whole manuscript has been revised and the manuscicpt has been modified in a good form. The introduction and conclusions have been improved to describe and serve the purpose of the studied area. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer have been applied as follow:
- Page 4, line 174. 122.2 ---> 122.20. See also line 209.
The digits have been corrected
- 1: a), b),… too small fonts. Fig. 1(c), symbols: to small symbols – see other panels. Fig. 1(e), x-axis: Temperature, C ---> Temperature, oC.
The figure has been replaced to proper figures with same symbols’ font.
Page 8, line 270. “correlation coefficient (R2)”??? It is not true - R2 is the determination coefficient.
R2 has been modified to determination coefficient
Tabs. 2 and 3. The use of so many models to describe experimental data - one measurement - is pointless and beyond scientific studies. Triumph of form over content.
The reason that many models have been used is the manuscript is part of a research project, where many many adsorbent materials have been applied to adsorbe some different metal ions.
- Tab. 3, Experimental capacity. Unity?
mg.g-1 has been added to tables 2 and 3
Fig. 5. (i) The way this figure was made does not match the previous ones. See also Fig. 8. (ii) The title of x-axis is incorrect.
Both of figure 5 and 8 have been changed. The X axis title had been corrected.
Page 15, lines 459-465. The values of the surface area are very small. These values are at the limit of the accuracy of the determination of surface areas by the instruments. What is the accuracy of measuring the surface areas of this instrument? I'd like to see adsorption isotherms, for example in Supporting Information. This remark made it a major revision.
The authors are gratitude to the reviewer for discovering the typo occured during writing the manuscript; the correct values were added. The surface area of the SBC is 234.91 m2/g; this results is consistent with previous study [55]. The surface area for 3-amino-5-hydroxypyrazole impregnated treated bleaching clay (AHIBC) is 257.24 m2/g .Moreover, a new reference was also introduced (reference 55).
Fig. 7. The resolution scale of the measurement cannot be seen in the panels. To be able to compare images, the scale must be the same in all three panels.
Figure 7 has been changed to new images with high resolution and the same scale of measurement 500 µm.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised their manuscript well. The revised version can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
The authors revised their manuscript well. The revised version can be accepted for publication.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer. We hope the manuscript will help the researchers and scientific community.
