Next Article in Journal
Mechanism and Compatibility of Pretreated Lignocellulosic Biomass and Polymeric Mixed Matrix Membranes: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Membrane-Mediated Lateral Interactions Regulate the Lifetime of Gramicidin Channels
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Non-Destructive Characterization of Industrial Membrane Cartridges by Using Liquid–Liquid Displacement Porosimetry (LLDP)

Membranes 2020, 10(12), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10120369
by René I. Peinador 1, Mohamed Kaabouch 2, Roger Ben Aim 1 and José I. Calvo 3,4,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Membranes 2020, 10(12), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10120369
Submission received: 22 October 2020 / Revised: 13 November 2020 / Accepted: 20 November 2020 / Published: 25 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Membrane Analysis and Characterization)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work proposed a method to characterize several microfiltration membrane cartridges by using a Liquid-liquid Displacement Porosimetry (LLDP) for getting their pore size distributions (PSD) and mean pore diameters. The topic is realistic and useful. I think there are some issues that need to be solved before it is considered to be accepted. The suggestions are as below:

  1. First of all, what kind of advantages does the LLDP have compared to GLDP? According to the authors, applying GLDP to large membrane modules as those concerned in the manuscript is a difficult task, and why can the LLDP overcome this limitation?
  2. Besides the scheme of the LLDP Porosimeter, the authors may consider to present a photo of the experimental device as well as the testing samples to show the power of the characterization method.
  3. What is the most prominent advantage of the LLDP compared to GLDP, considering the results of GLDP is more reliable according to the conclusion?
  4. The authors have mention in the introduction that LLDP has already been proposed to measure the pore size of UF and even NF membranes? What innovation does the work propose? The authors should point that explicitly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The paper should be re-organized according to the guide for author of this Journal.
  2. The Abstract should rewrite in order to attract reader's attention.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper had been improved significantly and can be published now.

Back to TopTop