Current State of Porous Carbon for Wastewater Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comment. We appreciate your recognition for the quality of our manuscript and your recommendation for its publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article describes the review about the use of porous carbon for waste water treatment. However, the article not comprehensively reporting the work on the waste water treatment using the carbon. Mostly focussed on the fundamental properties of carbon and various types of carbon has been discussed. There were no graphical representation of waste water treatment mechanism on carbon. the changes from the previous submission are not enough to publish. The article is not meet the standard of processes journal. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have added a graphical representation for main mechanisms of adsorption of pollutants on activated carbon.

Reviewer 3 Report

This review well presented the current state of porous carbon for wastewater treatment. I think it can be accepted after a minor revision. Here are some comments:

1. The carbon fiber is a very important part of porous carbon. The authors should discuss some of them.
2. The aerogel is also widely investigated for wastewater treatment. The authors should add some discussion on the aerogel.
3. Some graphene or CNT related work should be cited, such as Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 315, 10; J. Alloy. Compd. 2017, 708, 1178; ACS Energy Letters 2016, 1, 820; ACS Energy Lett. 2016, 1, 16;  J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 18605. 

 

Author Response

1. The carbon fiber is a very important part of porous carbon. The authors should discuss some of them.
2. The aerogel is also widely investigated for wastewater treatment. The authors should add some discussion on the aerogel.

Replay:

Thank you for your kind comments. In this review, we were interested in detailing the methods of preparation and application of activated carbon. However, we have programmed in a future paper (In preparation) detailing the different types of carbon fiber and carbon aerogels, their preparation methods and their fields of application.

3. Some graphene or CNT related work should be cited, such as Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 315, 10; J. Alloy. Compd. 2017, 708, 1178; ACS Energy Letters 2016, 1, 820; ACS Energy Lett. 2016, 1, 16;  J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 18605. 

Replay:

Thank you for your kind comments. We have included the proposed articles in the revised manuscript and summarized its main finding relevant to our investigation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is written well. Could be accepted to publish in the processes. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comment

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 reviews current methods available for the preparation of porous carbons and their application in waste water treatment. 

However, the there are several areas manuscript needs to improve. introduction is not written to describe the challenges in synthesizing the porous carbon and the current state of art methods. Nothing discussed about waste water treatment methods as well. 

The article is not summarizing the current state of art methods, just reporting the methods as they are. all of the content is already reported in the literature, this manuscript is not adding contribution to the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this review article the authors described different types of carbons, carbon precursors and their applications for pollutants removal especially heavy metals and dyes. The review covers most of the published articles and data. However, many published works still need to be highlighted like the ones for carbon structures from metal-organic frameworks and other related hard template synthesis methods. The article is poorly organized and need to add some adsorption mechanism on carbon surface. The authors must request for permission of the data used from publishing authority. Following are some of the comments that should be addressed before acceptance otherwise rejected.

1. Line 31: keywords must be selective not of similar nature like; graphite, porous carbon, graphene are all carbon based materials, authors must revised them.
2. Line 37: that correspond
3. Line 55: processes of porous carbon
4. Line 67: used in catalysis and adsorption. no need to write a wide variety….
5. Line 74: rephrase the sentence in more grammatic way. Present form is wrong.
6. Line 84: A good
7. Line 85: and its plasticity can be explained
8. Line 87: graphite as interesting materials
9. Line 123: in particular to the field effect transistors due to the high mobility of the surface electrons.
10. Line 147: which is essential for the synthesis
11. No need to put “……” in line 149, line 163, line 186, line 363. If it is etc, put it there.
12. Revised the equation on page 5, line 193. Put correct symbols where needed.
13. Line 198: such as water vapor, oxygen and carbon dioxide. The reactions are shown in equations 1-4.
14. Line 201: pores changes from micro- to mesopores
15. Line 271: a lot of progress has been made on the optimization
16. Line 283: in this regard, a limited overview has presented on the use of
17. Line 317: some authors obtained (no need to put the word “report”)
18. Line 334: and a specific surface area
19. Line 348: physisorption     
20. Line 354: between adsorbent (what 1 means for?)
21. Line 419: from graphene (and line 592, ref. 53)
    
22. Line 430: the author should change the sentence like: have collected data, here no new data collected and this a review article for which one can take literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

This review does no represent any new information source in the field of porous carbons The information is not well organized, and it is described very superficially. I do not understand why grphite, graphene and carbon nanotubes are included, as they can not be considered as porous carbons. In conclusion, i do not think this paper deserves publication in Processes. 

Some other considerations are described below:

1. The title should be “Current status OF porous carbon for wastewater treatment”
2. Line 43. The sentence “it is open or closed character and the size distribution of the pores” has no sense.
3. Section 2.1. It is not true that “microporous materials …… are generally prepared by the sol-gel method”
4. Line 133. The correct surname is Iijima, not Lijima.
5. Can graphite, graphene and carbon nanotubes be considered as “porous carbons”? If not, sections 3 and 4 have no sense in this review.
6. Line 192. Actually, the “burn-off” is not and activation rate, but an estimation of the degree of activation.
7. Line 197. The temperatures for physical activation use to be higher than 700 ºC, not lower.
8. Lines 207-208. Also activation with steam or CO2 produces an important mass loss; it depends on the time and temperature of activation. Furthermore, the sentence “…oxidation under these conditions will take place at the surface and in the porous structure of the coal” has no sense. Does the oxidation take place in all the carbon (surface and porous structure)?. Also, why “coal”?. This would be also valid for other carbons.
9. Line 236. What is “the carbon chain”?
10. The word “coal” is used in the manuscript as a synonymous of carbon, but coal is only a carbon of mineral origin. This has to be corrected.
11. Tables and Figures have to be introduced before they are shown. This is not the case with Table 1; it is first shown and then it is introduced (line 295). This has to be corrected.
12. Lines 365-366. Something is missing in the sentence “In adition, ……..preparation of activated carbon”.
13. Lines 384-385. “The same interpretation….” Interpretation, of what?
14. Line 390. What is the meaning of “silica agent” here?
15. Lines 403-405. “It seems that morphological properties of….”. It is obvious. But no only the morphological properties, also the physico-chemical, the textural properties, etc.