Cellulose Acetate Film Containing Bonechar for Removal of Metribuzin from Contaminated Drinking Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript “Cellulose acetate film containing bonechar for removal of metribuzin from contaminated drinking water”. In order to find a viable alternative for immobilization and removal of methazine from water, the author produced a cellulose acetate film with bonechar as a viable alternative for removal of metribuzin from water. The treatments were composed of 2 and 3 g of bonechar fixed on cellulose acetate film, pure bonechar (2 g) and a control (no bonechar). The sorption and desorption study was carried out in equilibrium batch mode with five concentrations of metribuzin (0.25, 0.33, 0.5, 1, and 2 mg L-1). Herbicide analysis was performed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The addition of 2 and 3 g of the bonechar fixed on acetate film sorbed 40 and 60%. Therefore, I would like to recommend publication after the following revisions.
1. The layout of the picture is not properly aligned, too far to the left.
2. The references cited are too early and not novel enough. Please cite more articles of recent three years.
3. The author designed this film material to purify polluted aquatic environment. Please prove the stability of this material in water.
4. Please supplement the SEM data graph of the thin film material after adsorption of pollutants for comparison.
5. It seems that several papers which are closely related to your paper should be cited in the introduction. Such as：
Adv. Mater., 2022, 34, 2107836;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2021, 60, 25318;
Adv. Mater., 2021, 33, 2105163;
Journal of Hazardous Materials 395 (2020) 122692.
Author Response
Reviewer #1: Therefore, I would like to recommend publication after the following revisions.
- The layout of the picture is not properly aligned, too far to the left.
The alignment of figures that are more than one image follows the left alignment as shown in the author's manual, provided by Processes.
- The references cited are too early and not novel enough. Please cite more articles of recent three years.
The references that have changed are marked in the section.
- The author designed this film material to purify polluted aquatic environment. Please prove the stability of this material in water.
In previously conducted, unpublished studies, it was observed that the acetate film is stable in water and does not degrade for the evaluated time (120h). This is observed in Fig. 2, where after the stirring time of the study the material did not degrade and did not release the bonechar particles into the water. For this reason, it is possible to remove the acetate film easily.
- Please supplement the SEM data graph of the thin film material after adsorption of pollutants for comparison.
The SEM images were taken only for characterization of the material initially, only the pure bonechar and not the film before and after the study.A second moment, the physicochemical analyses of the cellulose acetate film will be performed, however, they are not inserted in this material.
- It seems that several papers which are closely related to your paper should be cited in the introduction. Such as: Adv. Mater., 2022, 34, 2107836; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2021, 60, 25318; Adv. Mater., 2021, 33, 2105163; Journal of Hazardous Materials 395 (2020) 122692.
We thank the authors for their indications. However, the acetate film with bonechar is a product not yet reported in previous studies, being this the main objective of the work. The articles indicated are related to different chemically amended or unamended materials and their physicochemical properties. We point out during the discussion of the study, the previous reports that analyzed cellulose acetate for film formation, however, in none of the cases with the purpose analyzed in this study, which shows the importance of these results for the remediation of contaminated water.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dr. Kamila C. Mielke and coworkers reported the preparation of bonechar loaded cellulose acetate film and studied the adsorption/desorption behavior of the composite for metribuzin. Thought the authors conducted many experiments to evaluate the removal efficiency of metribuzin from drinking water. However, one can find that the removal efficiency and adsorption amount of metribuzin are quite low, while the residue concentration is still very high after adsorption, much higher than the MRL in drinking water of 25 μg L-1. Considering the low adsorption efficiency, it will be unusable of the prepared composite in real world. Therefore, I cannot find the motivation of this study and I recommend the rejection of this manuscript. Other questions that should be addressed are as follows:
1. The bonechar powder exhibited excellent adsorption efficiency of metribuzin. But the bonechar loaded cellulose acetate film showed poor efficiency toward the adsorption of metribuzin. So I wonder what motivates the authors to conduct this study and the aim of this study.
2. Is there any studies reported the adsorption of metribuzin from water? either by bonechar or other adsorbents? The advancement of the removal of metribuzin should be summarized in the background.
3. What is the advantage of bonechar comparing with activated carbon?
Author Response
Reviewer #2: Therefore, I cannot find the motivation of this study and I recommend the rejection of this manuscript. Other questions that should be addressed are as follows:
- The bonechar powder exhibited excellent adsorption efficiency of metribuzin. But the bonechar loaded cellulose acetate film showed poor efficiency toward the adsorption of metribuzin. So I wonder what motivates the authors to conduct this study and the aim of this study.
The bonechar powder presents great results, but the biggest difficulty in the usefulness of the powder is its removal from the water and the change in coloration provided by the material. The intention of the acetate film with bonechar is to facilitate the removal of the material from the medium, once it was observed that the material remains adhered to the film without changing the color of the water and the need to perform the filtration. Even though the acetate film does not provide the best results compared to the powdered material, research on a material that has potential for remediation of contaminated water is not discarded.
- Is there any studies reported the adsorption of metribuzin from water? either by bonechar or other adsorbents? The advancement of the removal of metribuzin should be summarized in the background.
The carbonaceous materials showed potential removal of several herbicides, as mentioned in the introduction, however, in water, there are no reports of metribuzin removal. Metribuzin has been shown to be strongly sorbed by biochar when added to soil. The idea is to test with various herbicides, since the sorption potential of the material also takes into account the physicochemical characteristics of the herbicide. Thus, for the responses may be different when varying the molecule studied.
- What is the advantage of bonechar comparing with activated carbon?
Activated carbon is classified by its high porosity and surface area, which facilitates its use as a sorbent for pollutants. Bonechar is classified as an activated carbon due to its high porosity. As the source of the raw material changes, so does the amount of porosity in the product, and temperature is also a determining factor for higher or lower porosity.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript processes-2060294 is perhaps needlessly long, but of high quality. Well-written, interesting for water remediation purposes, and with good results. Here are suggestions for improving the manuscript:
1. Since experiments with 3 g of bonechar yielded impossible quantification of metrilbuzin sorption, please remove this mention from the Abstract. Otherwise, the reader will expect to find some evaluation of the amount of sorbent.
2. The first two paragraphs of the introduction could be merged and shortened. For instance, the factors of water pollution are discussed twice. I suggest going brief in this part and more straight to the point.
3. L. 138 "the guidelines" -> "OECD guidelines", right?
4. The brackets in "equation (1)" or "equation (3)" are not necessary. Also, I find troublesome to state that the Freundlich model "was derived". I mean, what you derive from your isotherms is the parameters of the Freundlich model.
5. Fig. 3: While I understand why the Ce axis goes to 2 mg/L, the graph looks a waste of space. If the authors are using OriginPro for this representation, Scales -> Break, perhaps from 0.5 to 1.5.
6. Table 4: "Kg" -> "kg"
7. L. 299: "pi-pi chemical interactions" is quite redundant.
8. L. 350: "Similar result was" -> "A similar result was" or "Similar results were"
Author Response
Reviewer #3: The manuscript processes-2060294 is perhaps needlessly long, but of high quality. Well-written, interesting for water remediation purposes, and with good results. Here are suggestions for improving the manuscript:
- Since experiments with 3 g of bonechar yielded impossible quantification of metrilbuzin sorption, please remove this mention from the Abstract. Otherwise, the reader will expect to find some evaluation of the amount of sorbent.
The mention was removed from the abstract.
- The first two paragraphs of the introduction could be merged and shortened. For instance, the factors of water pollution are discussed twice. I suggest going brief in this part and more straight to the point.
The paragraphs have been summarized and merged.
- 138 "the guidelines" -> "OECD guidelines", right?
Yes, has been adjusted.
- The brackets in "equation (1)" or "equation (3)" are not necessary. Also, I find troublesome to state that the Freundlich model "was derived". I mean, what you derive from your isotherms is the parameters of the Freundlich model.
The suggestions have been modified in the text.
- Fig. 3: While I understand why the Ceaxis goes to 2 mg/L, the graph looks a waste of space. If the authors are using OriginPro for this representation, Scales -> Break, perhaps from 0.5 to 1.5.
We produce the images by SigmaPlot. The choice of the x-axis is based on the doses that have been studied. Based on the distribution of the points the Freundlich equation is plotted for analysis of the isotherms.
- Table 4: "Kg" -> "kg"
It has been changed.
- 299: "pi-pi chemical interactions" is quite redundant.
It has been changed in the text.
- L. 350: "Similar result was" -> "A similar result was" or "Similar results were"
It has been changed in the text.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors studied preparation and characterization of film composites made from cellulose acetate and bone char. The films were tested from removal of Metribuzin herbicide from water. The topic is interesting and fit with the journal scope. The manuscript is well-written and all parts are clear and with sufficient details. Results are reasonably interpreted and the conclusions were in accordance with the results obtained. I recommend publication in the current form.
Author Response
Reviewer #4: Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All of my confusion has been solved. Though I still insist that the novelty of this manuscript should be improved, it is fine for the acceptance of this manuscirpt in Processes.
