Study of the Ciprofloxacin Adsorption of Activated Carbon Prepared from Mangosteen Peel
, Tra Huong Do 1,*, Xuan Linh Ha 2, Huyen Phuong Nguyen 1, Anh Tien Nguyen 3, Thi Cam Quyen Ngo 4,5 and Hung Dung Chau 4,5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Study of Ciprofloxacin Adsorption of Activated Carbon Pre-pared from Mangosteen Peel by Tra Huong Do et al., (applsci-1886074)
The authors will have to make it clear in their response and the revised paper what the novelty of this work is as compared to the state of the art in the literature of other adsorption systems of antibiotics. This must include text related to either: 1) a novel material that has distinct advantages with respect to selectivity or capacity, 2) a novel theoretical treatment, and/or 3) an application that has not been addressed to date. It is not sufficient to describe another adsorbent for another "standard application". Whatever the advantage of the adsorbent material is (capacity, selectivity, etc.) must be backed up with comparison data with the state of the art in the literature.
Other remarks
I recommend a full revision of the language in order to avoid further editorial work.
This paper needs a major revision.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the red color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is of good quality with regards to the scientific content. It needs spell check and a bit of clean up to be more concise. This is especially so in the experimental section of the paper. An example: merk which I assume should be Merck.
Please also include the manufacturer and model of all the instruments used such as the SEM.
In general, the paper was average without any real new concepts. It was good as a review for how to compare the various models of ad/ab-sorption. The paper does need to have less soft English in it and be more technical in description. For example the authors state the experiment was run three times. Does that mean the experiment was done 3 separate times or the sample was divided up and run in triplicate.
Other generic comments should be removed from the paper. The analyses were done on various instruments but little is said as to the conditions used, sample prep, and model of the instrument in sufficient detail to be reproduced by others.
The paper also needs a spell check done for names as Langmuir was spelled in one place as 2 words.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the red color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made the suggested changes. The manuscript is now of sufficient quality to be published in Applied Sciences.
