Treatment of Water Contaminated with Diesel Using Carbon Nanotubes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all I think that this paper is, as a whole, scientifically sound and the topic is of wide interest. However, in my opinion, there are points that need to be clarified prior to publication:
(1) The title does not reflect the study presented: The study presents the absorption of diesel using nanotube, it did not emphasize the recycling of water. There should be only one meaning to the title. The topic, the protocol, a summary of the results, and the population studied (humans) must be mentioned in the title.
(2) In the introduction, the phenomenon behind the absorption of behind for diesel onto CNT have to be explained based on the structures between the two.
(3) What was the density of the CNTs and does it have an influence of adsorption in the presence of water and diesel which also have different densities?
(4) One of the objectives of this study was to compare the adsorption results with those of gasoline (line 114 to 117). What was the comparison outcome?
(5) The authors must present clearly in methodology how the adsorption capacity was performed.
(6) Fig. 1. 40 ml is not for diesel. The graph is opaque, and the labels are not clear.
(7) Graphs in figure 2 can submerge. The units of the quantities of carbon must be given.
(8) There is no proof that there was agglomeration in this experiment or a decrease in surface area of CNT. The aim of stirring was to ensure the adsorption active sites is increased. If you have experienced agglomeration in your first paper, give the reference on this.
(9) What are the adsorption and desorption thresholds of your prepared CNTs.
(10) How is the large molecular structure of diesel’s adsorption is compare to gasoline?
References appear to be accounted for in the manuscript. However, the author overused the references. The author may use the most appropriate reference. The author must add the IDO to each reference
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
In the attached file are the answers to your suggestions.
Thanks for your advice.
Greetings
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the method of removing diesel fuel from water by means of carbon nanomaterials. The study was carried out at a competent scientific and technical level. A harmonious description of the obtained results is given. The article can be published after correcting a few remarks:
1.Correct the typo in table 1
Carbon Nanotubes [g] 0.3; 0.5; 0.1; 1
2. Keep the abbreviations consistent
...CNTs can be considered as a suitable quantity to obtain the full adsorption of diesel fuel in water. Using 1 g of CNTS
...(Fig.6 b;c) and Figures 2c, d,
...13C-NMR and 13C-NMR
...g and grams
... 500-4000 cm-1 with a resolution of 2 cm- 1
3. Insert units of measurement
line 199 ....of nanotubes to 0.5 g (Fig.2b), the results
4.Correct the errors in figure 1: in both flasks - diesel; weight 0.1 g not used in work
5. Specify clearly in the article and in the conclusions why certain masses of nanotubes are used:
In Figure 2, the most effective masses are 0.7 and 1.0 g.
In Figure 5, it is not clear why there is no experiment with a mass of 0.7 g.
Figure 7 uses a mass of 0.5 g
In the conclusions, the best mass is 0.7 g
Author Response
In the attached file are the answers to your suggestions.
Thanks for your advice.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Recycling of Water Contaminated by Diesel Using Carbon Nanotubes" explored the adsorbent properties of carbon nanotubes.
The manuscript needs minor corrections. Below are my suggestions:
1. In Fig. 1, both liquids are mentioned as diesel in the initial systems diagram. In the description, it is said that it is a water/diesel ratio. Please correct it.
2. In the results section, authors need to validate their theory with published literature.
3. The results can also be compared with similar published studies.
Author Response
In the attached file are the answers to your suggestions.
Thanks for your advice.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
As the authors described, The present research represents only a preliminary study to test the possibility of using carbon nanotubes as adsorbent materials in the purification of diesel-contaminated water. Therefore, for further consideration of publication with high repeatability and readability, there needs much endeavor to modify this manuscript.
1. Figures 1 and 7 could be improved in terms of the resolution and word format(%desorbed), respectively.
2. Line 30, the use of “but” is not appropriate.
3. The demonstration of the diesel history and its working mechanism in the auto mobiles is not much related and lacks of necessary citations for academic readers.
4. Line 104 to 112, what exactly the difference is between the petrol and gasoline.
5. Since the research “was intended to test whether carbon nanotubes present in the treatment of diesel-contaminated water the same effectiveness that they show in gasoline contaminated water.” Where is and what about the gasoline stuff?
6. Line 136 cm-1 is not with an incorrect format.
7. The writing of CNTs and CNTs shall be identical.
8. the figure 1 is incorrect demonstrated, because it did not contain water part.
9. There should be a space between the numbers and their units throughout this manuscript.
10. Figure 3, qe is incorrect.
11. Please show in detail the parameters of conditions for filtration of diesel-water from excluding the CNTs and other processes.
12. Please show in detail how to calculate the %adsorption and explain what does it mean.
13. Line 200-201 “At longer times, the behavior is different in fact the percentage value of adsorption stands at about 90% after 30min to reach about 100% of adsorbed diesel fuel after 60 minutes.” Please explain it.
14. These terms such as Tg, TG, DTG, DTg, DrTG should be written in consistence. For the purpose of comparison, the original CNTs of the same characterization must be also present in this manuscript.
15. Line 296 what is the meaning of “% of adsorption”.
16. “All this can be motivated by a small quantity of diesel which cannot desorb during the desorption phase, and which is retained inside the nanotubes.” Please show the optical evidences. And explain how the CNTs retain the diesel.
17. Why “The acetone extraction method probably does not allow total desorption”.
Strictly speaking, the way of writting and description in the boby is more of colloquial and casual. Sentences with clear meanings are better if shorter and preciser.
Author Response
In the attached file are the answers to your suggestions.
Thanks for your advice.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No Comment
