Next Article in Journal
The Application of Cation Exchange Membranes in Electrochemical Systems for Ammonia Recovery from Wastewater
Previous Article in Journal
Study of Acid Whey Fouling after Protein Isolation Using Nanofiltration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Combined Effect of Activated Carbon Particles and Non-Adsorptive Spherical Beads as Fluidized Media on Fouling, Organic Removal and Microbial Communities in Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Organic Fouling Impact in a Direct Contact Membrane Distillation System Treating Wastewater: Experimental Observations and Modeling Approach

Membranes 2021, 11(7), 493; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11070493
by Amine Charfi 1, Fida Tibi 2, Jeonghwan Kim 2, Jin Hur 1 and Jinwoo Cho 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Membranes 2021, 11(7), 493; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11070493
Submission received: 31 May 2021 / Revised: 27 June 2021 / Accepted: 28 June 2021 / Published: 30 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor for Wastewater Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

I recommend major revision based on the following comments. 

1. For model validation, you used the least-squares function. There are other functions. Please, add at least two functions and compare them to your model validation. 

2.Please, illustrate the reason to focus on the effects of the feed solution pH and temperature only.

3.Please, state the consequences of the flux decline. 

5.The difference between the particle size of SA-BSA solution at pH 4 and other pH values is too big. What is the reason for that? 

6. Which equation did you conduct your model validation? in 3.3. Model validation: 

7. Conclusions are not covered to all points. Please, rewrite it. 

8. Please, insert the scheme of DCMD system as supplementary. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

please find attached detailed answers to your valuable comments

best regards

Jinwoo Cho

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript is written correctly. However, please see a few comments below:

  • There is no discussion comparing the results obtained by the Authors and the results available in the literature,
  • Lines 81, 122, 173, 208...: There is no space between numerals and degree symbol,
  • Line 182: There is no space between pH and 4,
  • The quality of the Table 1 should be improved,
  • The quality of the Figure 5 should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

please find attached detailed responses to your valuable comments

best regards

Jinwoo Cho 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. 

Back to TopTop