Study on Flocculation Characteristics of Potato Starch Wastewater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors reported the manuscript on the “Study on flocculation characteristics of potato starch wastewater”. The manuscript is well organized. However, still there are some issues that need to be clarified. I recommend the acceptance of this paper after minor revision.
1. What are the other films used to treat the potato starch water? The author should summarize them in terms of preparation cost, performance, degree of substitution, etc., to increase the work creditability.
2. In the first sentence of introduction, the reference should be [1,2] instead “12”. The author should be recheck the manuscript format.
3. The overall abstract needs to be improved. The abstract is too long, it should be precise and concise. The author should follow the word limit. The author should revise the abstract by stating the main objective, problems and their possible solution.
4. What are the main parameters to control or improve the performance?
5. The SEM images should be recorded at high magnification (e.g., 1 micron and 500 nm) and the compression must be performed at the same magnification.
6. Authors need to enrich scientific words to enhance the creditability of the results discussions.
7. Some grammatical, syntax, or word usage errors exist in the manuscript.
8. The author should define all the abbreviations used at the end of the manuscript as per the journal format.
Some grammatical, syntax, or word usage errors exist in the manuscript.
Author Response
We uploaded a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The following report is based on my review of the manuscript entitled “Study on flocculation characteristics of potato starch 2 wastewater”, with manuscript ID coatings-2607185
The manuscript fits within the scope of coatings Journal and is also interesting and research is impressive, the similarity index its just 10%, which is very good. However, the following shortcomings have been pointed out and need to be addressed properly for further improvement of the manuscript. They are:
1. How could you start your citation with number 12 as in line 37? The whole of your citation need to be revised, starting from 1 to the last number, where two or more appear, then separate by comma (,) as in 12,13 not 1213 in line 72.
2. In line 37 its 12cm3 not cm3
3. Image in the text should come from lowest to highest
4. Add RSM to your keywords
5. Low quality images.
6. I can’t find Table 1. In the text
7. Conclusion is very scanty, it doesn’t cover the aspect
No Issue
Author Response
We uploaded a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: coatings-2607185
Title: Study on flocculation characteristics of potato starch wastewater
Dear Authors
This manuscript reports the chitosan film modified by 2, 3-epoxy-propyl trimethyl ammonium chloride to flocculate granular pollutants in potato starch wastewater, aiming at the deficiencies of poor water solubility and weak electro-positivity of chitosan film. Although, interesting results have been obtained, overall, the manuscript needs major revision before it can be accepted for publication in the Journal of Coatings. In this regard, the author(s) should improve their work according to the following indications.
1. Add the optimal removal rates of various flocculation patterns.
2. TGA curves should be added and well discussed.
3. After the literature review, the author should explain better how the paper fills its void. Please clarify the highlights and the novelties of the work.
4. The reference of the used equations should be mentioned.
5. The flocculation procedure should be explained in operation details.
6. Sensitivity analysis should be performed
7. The future prospects should be addressed with consideration of the opportunities and challenges.
Sincerely yours,
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
We uploaded a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I am writing to inform you that the authors of the manuscript have diligently addressed all the reviewer comments and have submitted a revised version of the manuscript, which I find to be acceptable for publication. I have thoroughly reviewed both the original submission and the revised manuscript, and I am impressed with the authors' commitment to improving their work.
Yours sincerely,
Minor editing of English language required
