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

feixiang113

银虫 (著名写手)

应助: 106 (高中生)
金币: 1063
散金: 3781
红花: 25
帖子: 2723
在线: 482.4小时
虫号: 424206
注册: 2007-07-21
性别: MM
专业: 环境污染化学

[求助] 这样的情况能申诉吗？

我这样的审稿意见，可以考虑申诉吗？因为是本领域比较强的期刊，但是意见总觉得憋屈。要不要申诉啊，还是改投啊，哎，我觉得2个审稿人都没有特别重大的意见，其中第一个审稿意见还行，关键是第二审稿人给了拒稿，原因就是认为和2篇文献工作有重叠，其中一篇肯定没重叠，另一个篇是有重叠的内容，但是那些都是做这个领域必须考虑的影响因素啊，每个人都会重复咯，如果不做这些就不对了哦，我怀疑第二个审稿人不会就是那篇文章作者吧，此外第二审稿人提供的其他详细问题都看起来不是文章的重点，也和那2篇重复的文献观点不一致呢。

Editor:
According to the policy of WR editorial board and the reviewers' serious/critical comments, this manuscript should not be considered for publication in Water Research. The Reviewer #1 shows possible publication after revision. However, Reviewer #2 pointed out serious drawbacks for publication in WR and proposes rejection. I agree the judgment of the Reviewer #2. Reviewer #2 also pointed out overlapping with previous studies without explanation of originality of this paper and weakness in explanation in experiments and data discussion. In addition, Reviewer #1 pointed out paper redundancy and provided fundamental questions, which means that paper does not describe research content properly.

Reviewer #1: This paper described characteristics of multi-walled carbon nanotubes which can adsorb tetracycline. Experiments were conducted very well and the paper was written well. This technology must be applied to real water treatment process in the near future.

Throughout the paper, the text is redundant. It should be condensed.

Introduction
It is unclear where this technology will be applied.

Line 79-81
Please indicate why you have to investigate "the adsorption behavior of antibiotics on CNTs having different oxygen contents and the antibiotic adsorption capacity of CNTs".

Line 72-88
I wonder why you separate effect of oxygen from other parameters.

Line 86-88
It's may be better to revise such that various parameters are adsorption time, solution pH, ionic strength and humic acid and Cu2+ were used for comparative work.

Line 100
What is BET?

Figure 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) should be combined.

Figure S1 may be included in the paper.

Reviewer #2: General comments
The research paper "***" by* deal with the adsorption of antibiotics onto multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) in the batch experiments.

Although studying the effect of MWCNT properties on the tetracycline (TC) adsorption is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal, the present paper is highly overlapped with previous studies such as Ji et al., 2010b and Zhang et al., 2011b. In addition, there are many points where explanation is not enough such as experimental conditions.

More detailed comments are provided below following sentences.

Specific comments
1. Page 3, Line 54: The authors should address "TC has become a serious problem" as well, and it may be appropriate to include references regarding this issue.

2. Page 4, Lines 73-75: The authors should address the differences in the objectives and results between reference (Zhang et al., 2011b) and present paper more clearly.

3. Page 5, Lines 91-97: How did you obtain raw materials and reagents to prepare MWCNTs used in the present paper? Please give detailed information about materials and methods so it can be repeated by other researchers.

4. Page 5, Lines 100-102: The authors should provide the measurement procedure of the BET surface area and the particle sizes/outer diameters for MWCNTs used in the present paper.

5. Page 5, Lines 104-105: Why did you select 20 mg/40 mL of MWCNT dosage? The authors should describe the reason regarding this point.

6. Page 5, Lines 106-107: Why did you select 7.3-151.6 mg/L of TC concentrations? The authors should describe the reason regarding this point.

7. Page 6, Lines 120-123: Initial TC concentrations between two experiments designed to investigate the effects of pH and ionic strength on TC removal by MWCNTs were different in the present paper. The authors should describe the reason why the initial TC concentrations were different between two experiments, and should address the effect of initial TC concentration on TC removal.

8. Page 9, Lines 181-182: The authors should address the differences in the results between reference (Ji et al., 2010b) and present paper more clearly.

9. Page 10, Lines 201-202: The authors should provide the analytical results of hydrophilicity and dispersibility of MWCNTs for further discussion.

10. Page 10, Lines 213-214: Is "CNTs-2.0%O" mistyping? It is not clear to the reviewer why "CNTs-2.0%O" appear twice in this sentence.

11. Page 16, Line 331: Why did you select pH 5 to investigate the effect of Cu2+ on TC adsorption? The authors should describe the reason regarding this point, and should address the effect of pH in this experiment.

12. Pages 16-17, Lines 341-354: The experimental data regarding effect of ionic strength is missing in the Figure 6.

13. Page 17, Line 360: Why did you select pH 5 to investigate the effect of humic acid on TC adsorption? The authors should describe the reason regarding this point, and should address the effect of pH in this experiment.

14. Pages 25-35: The authors should provide captions for all tables and figures.

回复此楼