Concentration Polarization Quantification and Minimization in Cork Process Wastewater Ultrafiltration by an Ozone Pretreatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments to the manuscript (ID_ processes-1473864: Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment)were given below.
1) Please mentions the novelty clearly in the abstract.
2) It is not clear about the need/novelty of this work after reviewing literatures.
3) Experimental conditions should be explained in details.
4) How to monitor/assessment of concentration polarization: this should be presented clearly in the methodology.
5) Mechanism of ozone pretreatment should be provided. How many percent of TOC was mineralized? How about remaining composition of TOC?
6) Mass balance of ozone generated / used / released should be provided
7) Mass balance of ozone pretreatment should be presented.
8) Results, discussion and conclusion did not really reflect the meaning of title “Concentration polarization quantification and minimization”. Please consider to change the titile of the work.
9) in addition, figure 3, 4 are blur. Higher resolution/better figure should be used.
The present manuscript could be recommended to publish in the Science of the Processes after a major revision.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: processes-1473864
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork
process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment
Answers to reviewer 1
My comments to the manuscript (ID_ processes-1473864: Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment) were given below.
Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.
1) Please mentions the novelty clearly in the abstract.
According to the reviewer's suggestions, the novelty of this new and systematic study was added to the Abstract.
2) It is not clear about the need/novelty of this work after reviewing literatures.
A paragraph explaining the need for this work was added to the Introduction Section (lines 79-85 of page 2)
3) Experimental conditions should be explained in details.
According to the reviewer's suggestions, a paragraph explaining experimental details was added to Section 2.4. Ultrafiltration Experiments (lines 149-155 of page 4).
4) How to monitor/assessment of concentration polarization: this should be presented clearly in the methodology.
A new section 2.5 was added to the Material and Methods Section (lines 157 to 187 of pages 4-5) to clarify this part of the methodology.
5) Mechanism of ozone pretreatment should be provided. How many percent of TOC was mineralized? How about remaining composition of TOC?
A paragraph explaining more details about these questions was added to section 2.3 Ozone pretreatment (lines 125 to 135)
6) Mass balance of ozone generated / used / released should be provided.
An explanation of these details was introduced in section 2.3 Ozone Pretreatment (lines 136 to 140).
7) Mass balance of ozone pretreatment should be presented.
These calculations were presented in section 2.3 Ozone Pretreatment (lines 136 to 140).
8) Results, discussion and conclusion did not really reflect the meaning of title "Concentration polarization quantification and minimization". Please consider to change the titile of the work.
Only on this point, the authors disagree with the reviewer. The title must indicate the two novel aspects of the work, that is, the quantification of the polarization phenomenon, and at the same time, its minimization using an ozone pretreatment.
9) in addition, figure 3, 4 are blur. Higher resolution/better figure should be used.
According to the reviewer's suggestions, these two figures were presented with a higher resolution.
The present manuscript could be recommended to publish in the Science of the Processes after a major revision.
Thank you very much for your comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Manuscript ID: processes-1473864
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork
process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment
Review 2
Open Review
Manuscript Number: Process-1458385
This paper titled "Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment" is an interesting paper for the readers/researchers and seems to be an important for researchers those who are working on wastewater treatment. But it needs some improvement before the publication.
Here I am writing some comments for improving.
Thank you very much for your comments. These comments encourage us to continue working in this research area, which is in expansion. We thank you for your words about our project.
- Your paper is well organized and well written, I am bit confused about the abbreviation of liter at different points. Somewhere in tables or in manuscript. The problem is somewhere larger L or somewhere smaller l. Please go through and be consistent regarding L or l.
According to the reviewer's suggestion, all the unit symbols were corrected using (l) for the litre symbol in the final version of the manuscript
- However, I do not have other comments for your paper, it looks fine.
Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript (ID_ processes-1473864: Concentration polarization quantification and minimization in cork process wastewater ultrafiltration by an ozone pretreatment) was revised.
The authors have addressed the comments of reviewers.
Minor comments:
Please provide an explanation on calculation of hydraulic permeabilities (25-110 kg/h/m2/bar)?
3.1.1. UF Experiments: discussion should be presented in detail.
3.1.2 Apparent rejection coefficients (f): discussion should be presented in detail.
3.1.3 Mass transfer and Intrinsic rejection coefficients: discussion should be presented in detail.
Finally, the revised manuscript was improved. It could be recommended to publish in the Processes after a minor revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments.
Please provide an explanation on calculation of hydraulic permeabilities (25-110 kg/h/m2/bar)?
According to the reviewer's suggestion, a detailed explanation of this calculation was included in section 2.1 (lines 100-104).
3.1.1. UF Experiments: discussion should be presented in detail.
In the previous review, the authors already added a paragraph discussing this point in detail (see the response to the reviewer's comments in the first review).
3.1.2 Apparent rejection coefficients (f): discussion should be presented in detail.
The authors consider that an appropriate discussion of the results obtained is already present in the manuscript (section 3.1.2) lines 220-224.
3.1.3 Mass transfer and Intrinsic rejection coefficients: discussion should be presented in detail.
The authors consider that an appropriate discussion of the results obtained is already present in the manuscript (section 3.1.3.1) lines 260-266 for the mass transfer coefficient, and in section 3.1.3.2, lines 283-291, for the Intrinsic rejection coefficient results.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
