Influence of Oyster Shell Pyrolysis Temperature on Sediment Permeability and Remediation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research article on, 'Influence of oyster shell pyrolysis temperature on sediment permeability and remediation' is interesting, well written, and described. I would like to recommend to accept after minor revision:
1. In the abstract, Line no. 21: 'stimulates pore water flow' in my opinion this study is related to permeability so correct this statement.
2. In the introduction, add references related to oyster shell waste generation.
3. Line no. 39-47, related citations are missing.
4. In Material and Methods: Line no. 66, rephrase a sentence.
5. Detail should be added on how sediment was transported from the collection site to the experiment area and how it was stored.
6. Why author not studies over 600 Degree Celsius. for oyster shell pyrolysis and related impacts on calcium ions release?
7. Line 114, letter h or hour. Apply consistent abbreviations and acronyms throughout the paper.
8. Leachate analysis: The procedure specifies (line no. 114-116) sampling times of 10 to 20 hours and 20 to 60 hours for leachate analysis; however, Figure-3 depicts sampling times of 10 to 20 hours and 50 to 60 hours. Correct the procedure or the figure, whichever is incorrect.
9. In Result and Discussion: Line no. 119-120: Incomplete sentence, rephrase and complete it.
10. Line no. 136: Permeability coefficient value should mention ZERO not NIL in the sentence.
11. In conclusion, Lines no. 211 and 216: correct the pyrolysis temperature (300 or 350 degrees Celsius).
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful review and comments.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
We appreciate all reviewers and editors for their valuable reviews and comments on our manuscript. We believe all those comments helped us to clear the doubts and improve the manuscript. In the revised version of the manuscript, all corrections or modifications are highlighted in BLUE color text. Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments as follows:
|
No. |
Reviewer’s comments |
Authors response |
|
Reviewer – 1: |
||
|
|
The research article on, 'Influence of oyster shell pyrolysis temperature on sediment permeability and remediation' is interesting, well written, and described. I would like to recommend to accept after minor revision: |
Thank you for your recommendation. |
|
1. |
In the abstract, Line no. 21: 'stimulates pore water flow' in my opinion this study is related to permeability so correct this statement. |
Increasing pore water flow leads us to the conclusion that sediment permeability has increased, so we see no reason to modify the statement. |
|
2. |
In the introduction, add references related to oyster shell waste generation. |
As per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added two new references in the first paragraph. |
|
3. |
Line no. 39-47, related citations are missing. |
Appropriate reference cited in the text. |
|
4. |
In Material and Methods: Line no. 66, rephrase a sentence. |
The sentence has been corrected. |
|
5. |
Detail should be added on how sediment was transported from the collection site to the experiment area and how it was stored. |
Details regarding the collection and processing of sediment samples have been added to the materials and methods section (Line No. – 73-77). |
|
6. |
Why author not studies over 600 Degree Celsius. for oyster shell pyrolysis and related impacts on calcium ions release? |
As per previously reported studies, OS pyrolysis over 600 Deg. Cel. can cause the material to be powdered, with no significant changes in Ca ions composition so we used 600 Deg. Cel. only. |
|
7. |
Line 114, letter h or hour. Apply consistent abbreviations and acronyms throughout the paper. |
Suggested corrections implemented. |
|
8. |
Leachate analysis: The procedure specifies (line no. 114-116) sampling times of 10 to 20 hours and 20 to 60 hours for leachate analysis; however, Figure-3 depicts sampling times of 10 to 20 hours and 50 to 60 hours. Correct the procedure or the figure, whichever is incorrect. |
It is 10-20 and 50-60 hours, we have corrected the same throughout the manuscript. Thank you for highlighting this. |
|
9. |
In Result and Discussion: Line no. 119-120: Incomplete sentence, rephrase and complete it. |
The sentence has been rephrased. |
|
10. |
Line no. 136: Permeability coefficient value should mention ZERO not NIL in the sentence. |
Suggested corrections implemented. |
|
11. |
In conclusion, Lines no. 211 and 216: correct the pyrolysis temperature (300 or 350 degrees Celsius). |
Thank you for your observation. We have corrected the pyrolysis temperature in the revised version of this manuscript. |
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors conducted a comprehensive study on Influence of Oyster Shell Pyrolysis Temperature on Sediment Permeability and Remediation. Overall, the article is well written. Thus, this article is worthy of publication in this journal. But publication point of view some minor changes are required.
1. Add a few references in the introduction part to support the information provided in the first paragraph.
2. Sediment storage conditions are missing in the materials and methods section.
3. It would be better if the author can explain the pyrolysis effect on oyster shells’ chemical composition for a better understanding of the aim of this study.
4. Line no. - 114 to 116 and Figure 3 data do not match, make necessary corrections.
5. Lines no. 211 to 217, correct the oyster shells’ pyrolysis temperature.
6. The article should be carefully proofread for typographical errors.
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful review and comments.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
We appreciate all reviewers and editors for their valuable reviews and comments on our manuscript. We believe all those comments helped us to clear the doubts and improve the manuscript. In the revised version of the manuscript, all corrections or modifications are highlighted in BLUE color text. Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments as follows:
|
No. |
Reviewer’s comments |
Authors response |
|
Reviewer – 2: |
||
|
|
The authors conducted a comprehensive study on Influence of Oyster Shell Pyrolysis Temperature on Sediment Permeability and Remediation. Overall, the article is well written. Thus, this article is worthy of publication in this journal. But publication point of view some minor changes are required. |
Thank you for your recommendation. |
|
1. |
Add a few references in the introduction part to support the information provided in the first paragraph. |
As per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added two new related references in the first paragraph. |
|
2. |
Sediment storage conditions are missing in the materials and methods section. |
Details regarding the collection and processing of sediment samples have been added to the materials and methods section (Line No. – 73-77). |
|
3. |
It would be better if the author can explain the pyrolysis effect on oyster shells’ chemical composition for a better understanding of the aim of this study. |
The effect of pyrolysis on chemical composition specifically on cations concentration is highlighted in the Result and Discussion section Line No. – 120-126. |
|
4. |
Line no. - 114 to 116 and Figure 3 data do not match, make necessary corrections. |
Thank you for your observation. We have made corrections in the text. |
|
5. |
Lines no. 211 to 217, correct the oyster shells’ pyrolysis temperature. |
Suggested corrections implemented. |
|
6. |
The article should be carefully proofread for typographical errors. |
We have thoroughly read this revised version of the manuscript twice and corrected typographical errors. |
Reviewer 3 Report
In this article, the authors presents the results about the examination of the sediment permeability and remediation using crushed oyster shells less than 5 mm in size that were pyrolyzed at 350°C (POS350) 15 and 600°C (POS600) for six hours. Based on these results, it is concluded that pyrolyzed oyster shells are beneficial for increasing sediment permeability, thereby helping in the remediation of sediments.
The conclusions are relevant and drawn from the study.
I recommend checking the text to eliminate eventually spelling mistakes.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
We appreciate all reviewers and editors for their valuable reviews and comments on our manuscript. We believe all those comments helped us to clear the doubts and improve the manuscript.
We have corrected typographical errors.
