Sustainable Treatment Techniques for Emerging Pollutants—The Case of Personal Hygiene Products
, Odalis Guevara, Galo-Rafael Oviedo, Tania Crisanto-Perrazo * and Theofilos Toulkeridis *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting and novel in research but need a lot of revision in terms of the following
Number of typo and grammatical errors
Quality of figure 2 is poor
Use uniform reference citation
Each of the technique discussed in the paper is explaining the work done my one team in each case; It would be good if the work of other such cases be discussed along, to give more idea about the efficacy of the process
- Results y Discussion ??? There are so many errors like this, authors need to see the script carefully
There is less discussion in this section, pls add relevant references
Rewrite conclusion
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #1
The paper is interesting and novel in research but need a lot of revision in terms of the following.
R. Well, thanks for this initial comment. We see that you care a lot about the quality of our manuscript. Hence, the research group appreciates your comments and observations that will certainly help improve the quality of this manuscript.
Number of typo and grammatical errors
R. Our bet and absolutely accepted. The entire scientific article has been again revised, corrected and improved in matters of typing, grammar and style of expressions and grammatical errors found.
Quality of figure 2 is poor.
R. Within your observation, we definitely need to agree, as this could have been better managed. Well, we improved the quality of figure 2 and also of all the other figures in the manuscript.
Use uniform reference citation.
R. Good point, which we have missed initially. All the references of the paper were reviewed and they were unified in the style of Applied Science.
Each of the technique discussed in the paper is explaining the work done my one team in each case; It would be good if the work of other such cases be discussed along, to give more idea about the efficacy of the process.
R. It is accepted. The techniques have been reviewed, the application cases have been placed and they have been compared among them, highlighting the characteristics of the processes. Lines 148-158, 210-211, 215-224, 226-236, 277-283, 359-362.
Results y Discussion??? There are so many errors like this, authors need to see the script carefully.
R. Accepted as well. The research group carefully revised the script and separated the results and discussion sections, which at the same time were expanded. Results lines 148-366. Discussion lines 368-412
There is less discussion in this section, pls add relevant references.
R. We shall do so. The discussion section is increased by comparing the results with what was stated by the authors Thomas et al, 2018, Haiba et al, 2017, Butkovskyi et al, 2016. Lines 368-412
Rewrite conclusion
R. We did so. The conclusion was rewritten considering the main result of the investigation as well as its present and future application. Lines 414-431
Reviewer 2 Report
On account of the manuscript APPLSCI-1742782, entitled “Sustainable Treatment Techniques for Emerging Pollutants – The Case of Personal Hygiene Products” by Deysi Dueñas et al., the authors reviewed the sustainable treatment techniques for the abatement of personal care products (PCPs) in the water, between cocomposting, anaerobic-aerobic sequencing bioreactors and contaminant absorption through the use of carbon nanotubes. The topic is important to better understanding of environmental management of PCPs in the aquatic environment. After careful consideration, I feel that this manuscript is to be published after improvement of some major shortcomings. Details of my comments are as follows:
1) The view point of this research is interesting, and the authors got interesting results. Several important revisions are, however, required before publication. The first one is novelty of the research. The review and the results were elaborate. On the other hand, novelty of the present study is not so clear. Although the authors mentioned the aim of this study, the new aspect or view point of this research was not stated in the manuscript. The authors are strongly encouraged to mention the novel aspects and/or viewpoints which surpass the previous researches in the manuscript clearly, although the present manuscript was Review Articles, for enhancement of the novelty of the results.
2) Another notable aspect is in the notational issue. There is room for improvement in notation. Because too many use abbreviations in the present manuscript, the authors are encouraged to add list the descriptions of all abbreviations for enhancement of better understanding of the results.
Special remarks:
Typographical errors were frequently seen in the text. The authors are better to check the manuscript carefully for accuracy.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2
The view point of this research is interesting, and the authors got interesting results.
R. We, the research group appreciates very much your comments and observations that will certainly help improve significantly the quality of this scientific article.
Several important revisions are, however, required before publication. The first one is novelty of the research. The review and the results were elaborate. On the other hand, novelty of the present study is not so clear. Although the authors mentioned the aim of this study, the new aspect or view point of this research was not stated in the manuscript. The authors are strongly encouraged to mention the novel aspects and/or viewpoints which surpass the previous researches in the manuscript clearly, although the present manuscript was Review Articles, for enhancement of the novelty of the results.
R. It is accepted. The research group reviewed the entire scientific article, emphasizing its contribution as it chooses from all the techniques used for the abatement of personal care products the three that are sustainable and applies a method of ranking variables with the aim of finding the best technique that covers in a balanced way with the comparison criteria, such as construction cost, maintenance cost, development phase and efficiency of the method, thus providing a tool that is easy to apply and very useful for decision makers.
Another notable aspect is in the notational issue. There is room for improvement in notation. Because too many use abbreviations in the present manuscript, the authors are encouraged to add list the descriptions of all abbreviations for enhancement of better understanding of the results.
R. It is accepted, therefore, we generated a list of abbreviations and their meaning, which is situated at the end of the manuscript.
Typographical errors were frequently seen in the text. The authors are better to check the manuscript carefully for accuracy.
R. We realized that too, hence the article was revised in its entirety, where we corrected typographical, editorial and precision errors.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper describes the adequate sustainable technique for the abatement of personal care products (PCPs). Authors have adopted the three different representative sustainable treatment techniques such as co-composting, anaerobic-aerobic sequencing bioreactors and contaminant absorption through the use of carbon nanotubes for the removal and/or elimination of contaminants from PCPs.
The research design is appropriate and the methodological approach seems solid and proper. The paper was well organized and the results are important for and applied sciences. There is no problem regarding English. Therefore, I feel this paper should be acceptable after minor revision in view of the following specific comments.
(1) The choice of keywords may be insufficient. Anaerobic-aerobic etc. may be proper as keywords.
(2) It would be better if Conclusion may be described a little more detail from the technique or obtained results in this study. Moreover, it would be great if study implication or application for now and future may be provided.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #3
This paper describes the adequate sustainable technique for the abatement of personal care products (PCPs). Authors have adopted the three different representative sustainable treatment techniques such as co-composting, anaerobic-aerobic sequencing bioreactors and contaminant absorption through the use of carbon nanotubes for the removal and/or elimination of contaminants from PCPs. The research design is appropriate and the methodological approach seems solid and proper. The paper was well organized and the results are important for and applied sciences. There is no problem regarding English. Therefore, I feel this paper should be acceptable after minor revision in view of the following specific comments.
R. Well, thanks for this initial comment. We see that you care a lot about the quality of our manuscript. Hence, the research group appreciates your comments and observations that will certainly help improve the quality of this manuscript.
The choice of keywords may be insufficient. Anaerobic-aerobic etc. may be proper as keywords.
R. Good and very welcome observation, therefore we added three keywords, being Anaerobic-aerobic, co-compost, and carbon nanotubes.
It would be better if Conclusion may be described a little more detail from the technique or obtained results in this study. Moreover, it would be great if study implication or application for now and future may be provided.
R. It is accepted. The research group improved the conclusion by providing details of the work. Likewise, we added possible present and future applications.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
On account of the manuscript APPLSCI-1742782R1, entitled “Sustainable Treatment Techniques for Emerging Pollutants – The Case of Personal Hygiene Products” by Deysi Dueñas et al., the authors revised the manuscript appropriately according to the Reviewers comments. After careful consideration, I made a decision that the manuscript is acceptable for publication in its present form.
