Assessment of Heavy Metal and Oil-Contaminated Silty Sand Treatment by Electrical Resistance Heating Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
First, thank you very much for your contribution. The paper presents the electrical resistance heating method's profits for soil remediation and improvement.
The scientific approach, materials, and method were almost clearly described. Despite this, there is a lack of void ratio or density ratio of soil used in the experiments, especially in direct shear tests. How were the samples prepared for the shear test? Did every test refer to the same soil density? Were they undisturbed or reconstructed samples?
Figure 1. presents the same values (45 degrees) on the vertical axis, and it should be presented more precisely.
The website (www.geomelt.com) in Figure 4 does not exist.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper discusses the electrical resistance heating method as a remediation form of the contaminated soil. The issues and the tests performed by the Authors presented in this manuscript are interesting and important in the context of restoring the degraded areas to engineering activities.
However, Dear Authors, there is a lack of discussion with scientific studies in the field, and the current background of the issue. For this reason, after reviewing this manuscript, I regret it, but I don’t recommend its publication in Applied Sciences. However, I really encourage you to resubmit your paper. You are asked to rewrite all the sections: introduction, laboratory tests description, results presentation and their discussion with the results of other researchers. Also the literature review is extremely poor. Most publications are Standards and guidelines that have not been cited in the References.
In view of the above, and to you assist in any future submission, I offer the 43 specific comments that I have marked in attached file, to improve this paper.
Good luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
> 1. Line 32-34: There seems to be no causal relationship between the
> concentrations of the contaminant and its solubility on soil?
>
> 2. Lines 221-225: There is no text analysis of the table here. How
> can you draw a direct conclusion?
>
> 3. There is only an outlet on the upper surface of the electrical
> resistance heating device. The volatile gas produced by heating
> mercury in soil is toxic，and there is no subsequent purification
> device so the volatile mercury cannot be purified, resulting in
> environmental pollution.
>
> 4. The main research object of this paper is sandy soil, and there
> are many types of soil. The effectiveness of resistance heating
> method has not been confirmed in other types of soil.Therefore, the
> content mentioned at the end of the paper like “hazardous waste
> contaminated soil” can be changed to sand.
>
> 5. In the CBR test, it is mentioned that “Specimen was prepared with
> maximum dry density and optimum moisture which was confirmed from the
> compaction test according to KS F 2320”.But in “Figure 14. Modified
> CBR test result”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript “Assessment of heavy metal and oil-contaminated soil treatment by electrical resistance heating method” presents a study about the application of thermal treatment for contaminated soil. It is known that heating process is energy-intensive, the authors should provide more information before further promotion of this technique. Moderate revision is required before this study getting published
- The morphology changes of the soil particle should be shown using SEM images.
- More information about the cost should be discussed and compared with other approaches.
- Is this electrical resistance heating method suitable for in-situ or ex-situ operation? The author should clarify this argument.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the Authors for take account of all my comments and suggestions. Now the manuscript has been greatly improved and supplemented with the necessary details and explanations. After considering the following comments, I recommend this paper for publication in Applied Sciences.
(1) Page 1, l. 40:
It should be: "Al-Sanad et al. [2] ...."
(2) Page 10, Table 7:
- It should be: "Table 7. Comparison of remediation costs with thermal treatment methods (based on [18])
- Please indicate clearly in Table 7 which data are yours and which are from [18]?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
