Removal of Remazol Red Dyes Using Zeolites-Loaded Nanofibre Coated on Fabric Substrates
, Liliana Indrie 2,* and Ahmad Mukifza Harun 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe production of colored textile products, including those that contain additional patterns in addition to the main color, involves the use of a large number of dyes and pigments. These dyes are partially carried away into waste water. As a result, a large amount of water is contaminated with such dyes, which negatively affects the environment and humans. In the current study, the authors examine this problem and options for solving it. The emphasis is on Asian countries where the textile industry is widely developed.
The introduction, in my opinion, covers a small number of published works and needs to be expanded. Various membranes are used for membrane-based dye removal, such as those based on cellulose and PAN ( https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13070667 ).
Line 72. For zeolite powder, the particle size must be specified.
Line 76. The link is not formatted according to the journal's rules.
Line 139. Perhaps the authors had to enter "UV-Vis Spectrophotometer?" instead of "UV/Vis Spectrophotocopy"?
Line 157. Instead of "zeolite/PVA" it is better to use "PVA/zeolite".
In Figure 5, what does (T) stand for?
From Figure 6, it’s not entirely clear to me why the flow for a contaminated liquid is higher than for a clean liquid? Perhaps this is an experimental error? How was the sample prepared for measurements?
Line 251. "PVA membrane composites" - I recommend changing it to "PVA composite membrane".
Conclusions are drawn up in accordance with the results obtained, but do not contain comparative information. I don’t understand how much better the obtained materials are than those already described in the literature? What are the prospects for the resulting membranes?
The bibliography consists of only 19 references.
I also had questions about what happens to the polymer structure when zeolite is introduced? How is it distributed throughout the polymer matrix? How do the rheological properties of the system change with increasing additive fraction? Changing the rheological properties of solutions will greatly affect the conditions and stability of fiber spinning. What happens to fibers upon contact with water (contaminated system)? Does PVA dissolve? How is this proven?
It is desirable to expand the explanations of the results obtained.
Line 139. Perhaps the authors had to enter "UV-Vis Spectrophotometer?" instead of "UV/Vis Spectrophotocopy"?
Line 157. Instead of "zeolite/PVA" it is better to use "PVA/zeolite".
Author Response
Please see the attachment for responses to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the abstract of the manuscript are not included the important results obtained by the authors..
In the introduction missing the previous reports and references about investigations concerning preparation and study of absorption ability of polymer membranes loaded with zeolites or the other types materials.
In the introduction is not defined clearly the aim ot the wrk.
The two sentences on the lines 54-56 have to be rewritten.
lines 68-69 Based on what authors supposed that membranes have potential?
lines 77; 94; 116; 166 missing number of references in brackets.
In the results the authors could be presented the histograms about fiber diameters of prepared membranes.
From where are "woven polyester fabric and fusible nonwoven interfacing"?
Based on what the authors are written the sentence "Zeolites possess a notable cation-exchange capacity, enabling them to selectively adsorb particles present in the wastewater"? The sentence have to be supported with data and results.
Based on what the authors concluded that RR ions "This suggests that the percentage removal decreased due to the increasing presence of RR ions as the RR concentration increased"? The sentence have to be supported with results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for responses to the reviewer’s comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript reports on the preparation of zeolite-incorporated polyvinyl alcohol nanofibers on fabric substrates and their application as membranes to remove Remazol red dyes. The authors have explored the formation and characterization of the composite materials as well as their dye removal efficiency. Developing new composite materials and demonstrating their capability to purify water could provide interesting aspects to the materials science and environmental chemistry communities. However, a few important pieces of information appear to be missing from the manuscript.
The abstract should be precisely rewritten. Please try to avoid writing introduction-style statements (e.g., lines 13-16)
The authors need to justify what makes their PVA-zeolite composite nanofibers different from previously reported composites (Chemical Engineering Journal 2014, 256, 119; Scientific Reports 2020, 10, 15452; Journal of Nanomaterials 2016, 5638905) in the introduction section.
The authors may want to justify the used amount of zeolite from 0.25 wt% to 0.75 wt% (can it be added more as the dye removal efficiency increases as a function of zeolite content?).
As the authors examined the dye adsorption as a function of time, it is recommended to include adsorption kinetics and/or adsorption mechanisms (e.g., Langmuir, Freundlich, etc.). This information can provide more meaningful scientific findings.
Table 2 does not accurately explain the loaded amount of zeolite (it is just the relative abundance between Na and Si). Thus, a quantitative analysis is required to explain the loaded amount of zeolite.
Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 10, and Figure 11 should have error bars.
The Y-axis in Figure 7 should be clearly presented. What does Turbidity Removal % mean? Could this simply be turbidity or removal %?
It is highly recommended to include the UV-Vis absorption spectra of dye as a function of concentration as well as representative spectra for several representative sample solutions after the treatment with the composite membranes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is no major problem in understanding the manuscript. However, some statements are neither precise nor cohesive.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for responses to the reviewer’s comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have answered the questions posed. However, there are some minor inaccuracies in the manuscript.
There is no scale bar in Figure 4b. There are missing spaces in some places.
Line 324. "(RR)" - the abbreviation in the caption is not needed, it can be deleted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached is the responses from the comments given.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Author Response
No amendements are required by the reviewer.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have replied and incorporated many answers to the questions in the revised manuscript, which is greatly appreciated. However, there are still a few concerns that remain yet to be addressed directly, as described below.
(previously raised concern: As the authors examined the dye adsorption as a function of time, it is recommended to include adsorption kinetics and/or adsorption mechanisms (e.g., Langmuir, Freundlich, etc.). This information can provide more meaningful scientific findings.)
It seems like the authors used literature to address this concern in lines 76-79. However, the adsorption kinetics/mechanisms do not always correspond to the adsorbents (in addition, the authors did not use metal ions but dye-based adsorbates), which should be clarified.
The authors included error bars in Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 10, and Figure 11. However, the absence of error bars for two samples in Figure 6 should be explained. It is also recommended to move the legend next to the line graphs). The overall quality of these Figures is somewhat poor (please use the same graph style for all figures because some graphs use horizontal lines and some graphs use both horizontal and vertical lines).
The Y-axis in Figure 7 should be clearly presented. What does Turbidity Removal % mean? Could this simply be turbidity or removal %?
The authors corrected the Y-axis in Figure 7, but not the title (“the turbidity removal of ..…”)
It seems like the authors forgot to include representative UV-Vis spectra, which should be included in either Figure 11 or Figure 13. (previously raised concern: It is highly recommended to include the UV-Vis absorption spectra of dye as a function of concentration as well as representative spectra for several representative sample solutions after the treatment with the composite membranes.)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached is the responses from the comments given.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
