Treatment of Dyeing Wastewater Using Foam Separation: Optimization Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I have thoroughly read the article. My decision is major revision. Kindly see the below comments and revise it:

 

1. Title of the article needs to be revised…

2. In the abstract of the article, objectives and problem definition written but needs to be revised for the understanding to readers too.

3. Add the more and relevant keywords in the article

4. First paragraph of the introduction section needs to be revised..last two lines meaning is not understanding in first paragraph of introduction section.

5. I found the lumpy references in the introduction section..for a good research article lumpy references must be lower

6. Figures 1 and 2 need to be visible properly.

7. See the table 1 properly

8. How frequently experimentations have been carried out by researchers..

9. See the conclusion of the paper and if possible then add it in bullet form so It will be very helpful for readers.

10. See the future work

11. See all the references properly

No

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

 

The article entitled “Treatment of Dyeing Wastewater using Foam Separation: Optimization Studies” is written well, the authors have cited systematic literature studies. However some major revision are needed.

1. Abstract section: The key words should be arranged in alphabetical order.

2. Introduction: There are numerous grammatical mistakes. This section should be revised.

3. A little description about dyes and their effects on ecosystem (aquatic plants and animals) is needed. You can follow and take ideas from latest articles published; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169962,   https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132063

4. Table 1, 2 and 3: The font size of the contents should be checked.

5. The structure of ethylene blue (Figure) should be included in manuscript.

6. There are no standard deviations (SD) values in results. Why?

 7. Discussion: The discussion section is weak. The results should be discussed and compared with previous literature study.

8. Conclusions: It should be revised and arranged in the form of paragraph. The bullets should be removed.

9. References: Arrange and recheck the references according to journal format.

10. The author should check plagiarism after revision before submission of revise manuscript.

11. The manuscript should be revised carefully. There are some minor grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

There are minor grammitical mistakes. Revision is needed 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

• Figure 1. Diagram 1a) indicates each part of the system used by numbering and the name of the component. Diagram 1b) no longer contains the numbering. It only has the names of the components. It is suggested to add the numbering for a better understanding. Also, point out the component that is differentiating the contrasted system and the experimental one.

 

•The references used must be updated, more recently references might be used,  since the last 5 years until now . In the document there are only 6 references within this range:

Line 714

Line 725

Line 733

Line 736

Line 793

Line 800

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

See the below comments and revise article:

 

1. Abstract of the article does not contain the problem definition and objectives.

2. See the conclusion of paper..it must be come from the result and disucssion section only

3. See the two novelties of the article

No

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have revised the papers according to reviewer comments. Therefore I recommend its publication.

Plagrism should be checked

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

The manuscript does not provide an essential volume of information that would interest readers of Water. The manuscript reports very trivial results that would suit a laboratory work report at a decent university rather than a scientific paper. Let's take some look at which conclusions the paper reports. "The isolation of MB by employing SDS and SDBS in the contrasted and experimental column was successfully carried out. All the separation experiments were performed at optimum conditions to investigate the effect of other operating variables on enrichment ratio, percentage removal, surface excess, and foam wetness." The cited statements are declaration that some work has been performed. The authors find it important to underline that the work was "successfully carried out. This is a very important conclusion but readers of Water prefer to read about factual results and their implications. Next, we read: "The column containing higher liquid volumes with dilute concentrations of MB in it and when higher flow rates of air were allowed to pass through the liquid pool, percentage removal was found to increase." Certainly, it must increase. There is no need to perform an experiment to find such an evident effect. The next conclusion is exactly as cited below: "The enrichment ratio witnessed an increase when lesser liquid volumes with low MB concentrations and at low airflow rates were treated." This is another conclusion that repeats an evident fact that follows from conventional physical wisdom. It is good that the work reveals evident facts. However, to merit publication, the work must also report at 

least one new piece of new information. The manuscript is of poor quality, so I would recommend rejection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Authors did great job. This paper should be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 has accepted the paper in the present form only.

Reviewer 3 Report

The problems created by the contamination of industrial wastewaters and by the growing need to remediate and recovery the largest amount of them by sustainable processes are surely of primary importance. You focused your research on the foam separation process of dyes from wastewater.  I was impressed by the deep evaluation, optimization and analysis of all the operation variables but the paper must be improved in some aspects to make your research data exhaustive. 

General Comment: 

It would be useful to add further information concerning realistic structures suitable for industrial applications, in parallel with the two columns employed in your research, their technical characteristics and performance, as well as the feasibility of these solutions in terms of cost, time and water volume to treat. Moreover, a deeper analysis of the advantages/drawbacks of this methodology in comparison with the various others in use, as well as clear suggestions for the practical application on the basis of your results. A comment explaining your choice of the two surfactants SDS and SDBS and the exclusion of different ones is requested. 

Specific comments: 

-lines 89-90: the sentence describing the adverse health effects must be moved in another position in the text. 

- line 141: I would change the paragraph 3 to : Results and Discussion and then: 3.1. Estimation of parameters, and so on. 

- lines 165-168 : the sentence has been doubled.  

- lines 218-219. Can you add a reference or few examples to support this statement? 

- Figures: you added a really huge amount of figures to your paper. In my opinion some of them can be deleted when no more information is added with respect to the description in the text. For example this can be for figure 5 (a and b), Figure 8 (a and b), Figures 9-11. 

 

-line 448: you stated that the Taguchi method ..”..requires less number of experiments” . Please, explain in comparison with which other methods.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I have thoroughly read the article. My decision is major revision. Kindly see the below comments and revise it:

 

1. Title of the article needs to be revised…

2. In the abstract of the article, objectives and problem definition written but needs to be revised for the understanding to readers too.

3. Add the more and relevant keywords in the article

4. First paragraph of the introduction section needs to be revised..last two lines meaning is not understanding in first paragraph of introduction section.

5. I found the lumpy references in the introduction section..for a good research article lumpy references must be lower

6. Figures 1 and 2 need to be visible properly.

7. See the table 1 properly

8. How frequently experimentations have been carried out by researchers..

9. See the conclusion of the paper and if possible then add it in bullet form so It will be very helpful for readers.

10. See the future work

11. See all the references properly

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx