Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
, Ali Irfan 2, Sami A. Al-Hussain 3, Gulnaz Sharif 4, Amina Mumtaz 1, Fozia Batool 1,* and Magdi E. A. Zaki 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript is organized very well. However, it needs revision due to few issues.
1. English correction is needed.
2. The introduction should be elaborated still using recent work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0083-y
3. In section 2.1, the purity % of chemicals needs to be provided.
4. I suggest providing a schematic diagram for synthesis method.
5. In Fig.4, is XRD peaks supporting any standard JCPDS?
6. In SEM image, the grains are clear. Can you find the grain size. See reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.01.178
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-019-3143-2
7. In Fig.9, the unit is missing on X-axis.
8. In Fig.6, the high atomic and weight % of oxygen is found. Why?
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER-REVIEWER-1
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plain text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
REVIEWER 1
Q 1English correction is needed.
Answer:Corrected accordingly.
Q 2 The introduction should be elaborated still using recent work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0083-y.
Answer:Introduction elaborated using recent work.
Q 3 In section 2.1, the purity % of chemicals needs to be provided.
Answer: Purity is provided.
Q 4 I suggest providing a schematic diagram for synthesis method.
Answer: schematic diagram for synthetic process added.
Q 5 In Fig.4, is XRD peaks supporting any standard JCPDS?
Answer: JCPDS Peak index No is 80-0020 used.
Q 6 In SEM image, the grains are clear. Can you find the grain size. See reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.01.178
Answer: Size of grain is determined by BET and given on page 9-line number 265.
Q 7 In Fig.9, the unit is missing on X-axis.
Answer: Units are given on X-axis.
Q 8 In Fig.6, the high atomic and weight % of oxygen is found. Why?
Answer: Oxygen is part of our composites synthesized as it is present in sodium alginate as well as in guar gum in high percentage. So overall high amount is observed in results shown in fig 6.
We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements and will be suitable for consideration for publication.
Kind Regards
Submitting Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Tha paper based on composite adsorbent for removal of direct blue 86 is promising. However, there are some revision need to be done before acceptance.
1. In abstract, stating the best adsorption model fitting with the result, and also the best kinetic model.
2. What is the novelty of this adsorbent?
3. How can you overcome the problem of creation of secondary pollutants after adsorption?
4. BET surface area is suggested to be included in the revised manuscript.
5. Regeneration of the adsorbent is suggested to be included in the revised manuscript.
6. Adsorption of other pollutants (apart from dyes) is needed to be included in the revised manuscript.
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER-REVIEWER-2
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plain text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
REVIEWER 2
Q 1 In abstract, stating the best adsorption model fitting with the result, and also the best kinetic model.
Answer: Results added.
Q 2 What is the novelty of this adsorbent?
Answer: These composites are not reported before and used for the removal of DB86. So novelty of work is newly synthesized composites and their application for DB 86 removal.
Q 3 How can you overcome the problem of creation of secondary pollutants after adsorption?
Answer: Synthesized composites can be used many time for the dye removal and for dispose of there is no as serious issue because all components utilized are not harmful for health purpose.
Q 4 BET surface area is suggested to be included in the revised manuscript.
Answer: Surface area is already included in paper on page 9 line number 265, Surface area was found to be 5.606 m2/g
Q 5Regeneration of the adsorbent is suggested to be included in the revised manuscript.
Answer: Portion for regeneration is added in manuscript.
Q 6 Adsorption of other pollutants (apart from dyes) is needed to be included in the revised manuscript.
Answer: Synthetic composites were applied for the removal of acid orange as well and we are writing a separate manuscript on it.
We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements and will be suitable for consideration for publication.
Kind Regards
Submitting Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Manuscript title:
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
You have obtained very interesting results that I considered important to the scientific discipline.
The reviewed manuscript concerns the development of a new adsorbent that was synthesized using sodium alginate, guar gum and activated alumina coated with iron (SA@GG@ICAA composites) by ionic gelation. Removing dyes from wastewater is a very important environmental issue.
The work is innovative and contributes much to modern science.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER-REVIEWER-3
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plain text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
REVIEWER 3
Thank you very much for peer reviewing our manuscript and we appreciate your complimentary recommendations as your valuable comments encouraged us to future plan such work in this field.
We hope that your valuable comments will be helpful for acceptance in the journal Coatings.
Kind Regards
Corresponding Author
Kind Regards
Submitting Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
accept
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports the synthesis of an eco-friendly composite that can be used for the adsorptive removal of organic dyes for wastewater. However, the manuscript in general is poorly written and the quality of the figures is not good as well. It can not be accepted in the current form. Below are some of the comments that must be addressed:
· The introduction is very long and full of redundancy, it must be rewritten in scientific language, and references should be specified for each sentence, not collected at the end of paragraphs.
· English should be revised and typos should be fixed.
· The Apparatus section should be removed, no need to list out glassware and spatulas.
· Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.4, and 2.6 should be merged into one section, redundancy and very detailed sentences are not required for well-known procedures unless it is a teaching article, then it is not appropriate in a Professional original work journal.
· What do you mean by “hot plate at room temperature”?
· Zeta potential is negative, while an anionic dye was adsorbed by electrostatic attraction? More explanation and discussion regarding this contradiction should be added, I would recommend studying zeta potential at different pH.
· “XRD spectrum” how?
· The XRD diffractogram doesn’t show any crystallinity. The analysis and discussion should be redone.
· SEM figure, the caption is so confusing, only two magnifications can be selected and presented unless something is really needed, which is not the case here (reduce to only two micrographs).
· FTIR spectra should be combined in one graph for easy comparison, and the discussion should be rewritten in a clear language.
· Fitting and calculations of kinetics and isotherms are poorly done.
· Conclusions must be rewritten.
· References list is very long.
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plane text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
Thanks and rgards
Ali Irfan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work proposes a composite material made of alginate, guar gum and iron coated activated alumina for the water purification from the dyes using a direct blue 86 (DB-86) as a model dye. In general, the manuscript is written well. The composites are characterized in terms of their structure and morphology by a variety of methods. Adsorption isotherm and adsorption kinetics analysis shed some light on the mechanisms of adsorption. In general, the findings of the manuscript might be interesting for the audience of the Journal. However, there are several critical issues which should be addressed.
1. The first drawback of this study is the lack of any statistical analysis, all the experimental data are presented as single measurements
i) The error bars should be added to the Figures 11 - 17.
ii) The S.D. should be provided for zeta potential value, BET pore volume, and other parameters used to characterize the composites
2. The mathematical treatment of adsorption isotherms is presented very poor.
i) The equations are provided in the tables on the graphs, without any explanation of the meaning of this parameters. I strongly suggest integrate the equations into the text of the manuscript, describing the parameters used.
ii) Utilized models have different number of calculated parameters. This refrains from direct comparison of the goodness of the fit, because obviously the models with 2 parameters fit better than those with 1 parameter. The Authors should be careful in this respect.
iii) The overall outcome of the fitting for this study is not described well. What the Author may conclude about the mechanism of adsorption? The manuscript has a separate section devoted to the mechanism of adsorption, however, neither adsorption isotherms nor kinetics are discussed there. Only the effect of the pH.
iv) In continuation to the point above: What mechanism(s) for DB-86 adsorption on other adsorbents are known in literature? The results of this study should be discussed in view of that.
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plane text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
Thanks and rgards
Ali Irfan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript proposes the use of a novel adsorbent (SA@GG@ICAA Composites) for the removal of Direct Blue 86. The subject of the work is appropriate for the journal and the manuscript is clearly written, and it gives relevant results. The discussion is, in general, well-directed and the overall quality of the research is remarkable. Thus, the work is, in general, interesting and comprehensive; ranging from adsorbent fabrication and characterization to a thorough evaluation of dye removal. The high number of figures is justified on the basis of the length of the work that is presented. As I mentioned before, the discussion of the results is very clear and there are no negative points to highlight, although the environmental friendliness of the adsorbent is not fully reflected. Maybe this aspect should be explained in more detail.
Thus, I recommend its publication after minor revision.
1) In order to better show the XRD diagram to the author, XRD standard phases of sodium alginate, guar gum and activated alumina need to be added separately.
2) The characterization of the materials is not enough, thus we cannot get much information from the SEM images in Figure 5; the SEM images did not confirm the presence of iron-coated activated alumina entrapped in Sodium Alginate and Guar Gum Composites, TEM and/or HRTEM needs.
3) In fact, the zeta-potentials of adsorbent are pH-dependent, it’s better to provide the zero charge potential of SA@GG@ICAA Composites and the functional relationship between pH and zeta potentials. I think these experimental data are helpful for the author to further explain the phenomenon in Figure 11, that is, the effect of pH on dye removal efficiency. Likewise, the enhanced adsorption mechanism mentioned in Section 3.5 can be further confirmed.
4) In section 3, the author mentioned the crosslinking of sodium alginate and guar gum reduced the environmental toxicity of iron-coated activated alumina, please add the data of the leached metal ions from the materials.
5) Recently, there have been many articles on the prepared materials and their related applications, such as Chemosphere 302 (2022): 134849, Advanced Materials 33.47 (2021): 2004689, and Chemical Engineering Journal 430 (2022): 132829.
Author Response
RESPONSE LETTER
Manuscript
Fabrication of Composites of Sodium Alginate with Guar Gum and Iron Coated Activated Alumina for the Purification of Water from Direct Blue 86
Authors are again thankful to editorial office and reviewers for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plane text. All additions made in main manuscript appear in red.
Thanks and rgards
Ali Irfan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors didn't pay any attention to properly address the comments and all the critical defects are left without corrections. The paper can not be accepted in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate that the Authors put some efforts to improve the manuscript. However, it seems that they were not attentive and thoughtful by making the revision. Unfortunately, some of responses sound really defensive and baseless. A number of queries is remained without any response at all. If the changes are made, they are sometimes made very carelessly.
Q2: I certainly understand that some equipment (DLS) has been used in the collaboration with other institutions. However, the answer “We got (it) from another institute” does not relieve the liability to estimate the statistical significance of the data which the Authors are going to publish. Even without paying attention to the fact that the Authors use someone’s data from another institution without mentioning it anyhow in the manuscript and the fact that they do not have the raw data for the analysis, that is absolutely unacceptable when the results are claimed without any proofs of their statistical significance.
This specific question Q2 concerned also BET analysis, etc., in addition to DLS. The Author do not provide any response or comments in this respect.
Q1: I also find the argument “We can apply more statistical analysis on results but it was not added to avoid lengthening of manuscript. As it already contains sufficient data” very ungrounded. If the manuscript is too lengthy, one can put the statistical analysis into the supporting information.
Q5: the question here was to add the equations into the manuscript. Only two of them were added, others – not. For those two which were added, the parameters are either not described (Langmuir isotherm), or described but the units are missing (Freundlich isotherm).
Q6 remained without any answer.
Q7: I see the revised conclusion. The section on the mechanism still lacks any discussion of adsorption isotherms/kinetics of adsorption.
Overall, too many points remained unanswered. The Authors were not able to revise the manuscript accordingly. To my regret, I recommend to reject this manuscript in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer's comments are not very serious, and there are still many problems. I strongly recommend the rejection of publishing it.
