24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

jifei19830808

银虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 200.4
散金: 765
红花: 2
帖子: 385
在线: 155.1小时
虫号: 524518
注册: 2008-03-13

[交流] 新手求助

大家帮忙看看有戏吗
The review of your manuscript, Separation of oil from oily wastewater by sorption and coalescence technique using ethanol grafted polyacrylonitrile, submitted to Journal of Hazardous Materials has been completed.  The reviewers recommend the need for major revisions. Please revise your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments attached, and re-submit to me your revised version of the manuscript including an itemized response to each reviewer's comments.

Reviewer #1: Major issues:

1. Bases for the experiment's procedures that have been used are not clear. References for these experiments need to be added.
2. The most important issue with the oil-in-water emulsion is its stability. There are other materials present in the emulsions (such as soil) which could increase the stability. A mixture of oil and water does not show the oil-in-water emulsions which exists in the real world.
3. This paper needs to be reviewed for English correction.
4. The paper does not have a good flow of information. There is not a clear connection between paragraphs.

Some of the issues in detail are:

1. No connection between line 38 and 39
2. English problem such as lines 36, 44, 45, 48, 57, and 117.
3. Line 66: based on what? Ref?
4. Line 67" what is the base for using 90C
5. Line 69" What is the ref. for your procedure?
6. Line, "Oils" is not a good title for this section
7. Section 2.3.1: how many times did you repeat the experiment? Again no basis for your experiment is provided.
8. Section 2.3.2, why did you use these quantities?
9. Section 3.1, you should not surly make a decision. You should mention that these results could be as a result of... You have not done all the required experiments to get the final decision.

Reviewer #2: HAZMAT-D-08-01265

The presented results are of interest and of relevance to this journal. The idea to use PAN waste fibers as an oil sorbent is very interesting. The particular quality of the paper relays on the two procedures of testing the oil sorption: in batch tank and coalescing bed. However, this manuscript suffers from plenty of scientific and technical shortcomings that must be overcome. Authors must carefully proofread the manuscript. There is a number of typographical and grammatical errors. Therefore, this manuscript needs MAJOR revision before publishing in Journal of Hazardous Materials.

? Abstract is too long and summarized observations should be presented instead of plenty of numeric data. It should be stressed that diesel oil was studied in the case of coalescing bed.

? Line 62: The question is whether the authors worked with PAN fibers or yarns since they used metric yarn counts to define fiber diameter. In any case, corrections must be made. Nm (metric yarn count) is the unit for the fineness and not for the fiber diameter. Additionally, it is not in use anymore. If the experiments were performed with fibers, the average fiber diameter must be expressed in micrometers. However, in case the authors insist on the fiber fineness, they should replace "fiber diameter" with "fiber fineness" and convert Nm into tex units. The same units must be used for the yarn fineness.

? Line 71: It should be emphasized that SAE 30 and SEA 50 are motor oils. How was the weight loss of oil after 24 h determined? Why haven't been the experiments in batch tanks carried out also with a diesel fuel?

? Line 83: it is not clear from the subtitle what "sorption of oil in pure form" means. Probably, it would be better to put "sorption in oil bath without water".

? Applied procedure for the determination of sorption capacity in the case of sorption in water bath as described in 2.3.2 suffers from shortcomings that can seriously affect the accuracy of final sorption capacities. No drainage of excessive unabsorbed oil after the sorption process has been performed and this amount of oil was not further taken into account during the extraction and the calculation of sorption capacity. However, in Line 147, it was written that oil of low viscosity was rapidly drained during the drainage. Does it mean that the drainage was conducted after the sorption? If the answer is positive, authors must describe that part of the experiment and accordingly more precisely define how the calculation of sorption capacity was done.

? The discussion on FTIR results should be reconsidered and rewritten. To be more precise, it should be supported by references and adequate conclusions made from the changes in intensities of some peaks in spectra. "..the intensity of bands.had increased due to stretching vibrations.." is incorrect. The changes in the intensities of some peaks are related to the changes of the functional groups on the fiber surface.

? Bars are missing in Fig. 2.

? Lines 129-130: "..that the diameter of PANF was greater than that of PANF." According to the images it should be "..that the diameter of MPANF was greater than that of PANF.". Why is the diameter after the modification greater? Is it possible to become greater by 70%? If the erosion of the fiber had occurred, the diameter would have been smaller, what is not the case. Is it possible to make SEM micrographs in order to stress the morphological changes after the modification?

? Include the number of experiments and standard deviations of results.

? In the part of the text between Lines 156 and 166, it was mentioned that the water was adsorbed. How much water exactly was adsorbed at least after 1 h of sorption? It would be appreciable to do the buoyancy tests.

? Line 244: The names of the authors are incorrectly written. It should be V. Rajakovic..Lj. Rajakovic

? The units should be uniform. "3" in cubic meters in Fig. 6 and 7 should be in superscript. The initial oil concentration in abstract was expressed in ppm and later on, in the text and figure captions in mg/L. Make them uniform! Additionally, if the density was expressed in kg/m3, the Ce should be expressed in mg/dm3.

我主要的困惑有以下几点请高手指路:
1 有的观点我觉得我是对的,是不是做出详细的解释就可以?
2 我看了该杂志近期内的相关研究,都没人做error bar 为什么到我就要做?是否要做?
3 第二审稿人对我的配置原水方法的意见,我是按照很多外文方法来配置的,是不是可以引证别人的文章来解释
4 说材料制作的方法文献太少, 我查了没有相关文献,怎么办?
5 我感觉第二人不是在行的啊,我是环境的,材料的表征我顶多做红外和SEM,他最后一点说还不全面,还能咋整啊
6 文章我重写,如果改动较大(语言上的)是不是每一处都指出还是告诉他们,我的文章语言上做了改动呢?

谢谢大家帮忙  !!!

回复此楼