24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

carolwang123

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 5 (幼儿园)
金币: 2081
散金: 248
红花: 4
帖子: 208
在线: 196.8小时
虫号: 1409785
注册: 2011-09-20
专业: 生物化工与食品化工

[交流] BRT审稿意见回来了已有4人参与

感觉审稿人意见蛮大的，编辑给了小修。BRT上文章，关于超滤膜物理机理分析的文章。第一个审稿人意见咋回啊。。。都是大帽子

We have received reviewer's reports on your above manuscript. They indicated that it could be acceptable for publication if you can suitably address the comments (included below). I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript within 30 days. If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please highlight in yellow the changes made in revised version 。

Reviewer #1: Paper structure, in terms of problems statement, data presentation with methods, and solving procedures (with adapted models), looks fine and also there seems big faults and significant corrections. But, I also feel it is not easy to find new findings and/or new rational over existing research results (paers).

However, to improve the quality of the paper, I strongly recommend authors to add what improvements, over existing methodologies to prove (and overcome) organic fouling, were found, and what purposes of the tested models are, with overall and/or specific research objectives, with connection to presented data and discussions.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper where membrane fouling mechanism in ultrafiltration of succinic acid fermentation broth is analysed in detail for different membranes. The selection of ultrafiltration for downstream separation as an alternative to other operation units is very interesting from the point of view of the biotechnological process (succinic production from renewable resources vs the conventional petrochemical process).

The paper is well structured and the objectives are clearly stated. Experiments are well defined and the results correctly addressed. However, conclusions are not very novel and the paper does not add any significant contribution to the state of the art knowledge in this field. My suggestion is to (weak) accept the manuscript for publication, but only if the editor considers that the determination of the blocking mechanism that controls the four membranes analysed with different feed and operation conditions is interesting enough for BITE readers. SEM and AFM images (and the corresponding data treatment) are an interesting complement to the paper. A final discussion about the potential use of this fouling mechanism determination as a tool for real time control (in comparison with other on-line fouling rate monitoring tools) would add relevance to the paper.

Some minor details should be addressed before definitive acceptance.

- The four major factors considered in the resistance-in-series model should be specified in the introduction. Otherwise the reader can be confused with the four mechanistic sub-models of the semi-empirical Hermia's model. On the other hand, these four factors are repeated up to three times in the same page 5.
- Page 4, lines 45-50. This sentence "Thus. Hermia's model... the flux decline" is referred to the previous reference (Ho Chia-Chi and Zidney 2000)? Or it is an explanation about the work done in the paper. If this is the case this is already stated in the next paragraph (page 4, lines 53-59). Avoid repetition.
- Page 9, line 45. DI?
- Page 9, is the membrane operated in cycles with backwashing/relaxation to avoid fouling. If that is the case specify the sequence.
- Page 10, line 53. Avoid informal expressions like "what's more"
- English should be improved (some grammatical mistakes: e.g. page 4 line 42 "are still existed", page 10, lines 56-59 "For the membrane XXX, it displayed a...", some words misused: page 5, line 3 "detected" instead of measured/analysed/monitored, page 5 line 9 "choosing" instead of "selection", page 13, line 9 "serious" instead of "severe", etc..

Other:
- the journal usually does not publish raw data such as SEM or AFM pictures. So, please remove figures 4 and 5 and submit them as supplementary (electronic) material
- please number references in the list

回复此楼