Preparation and Characterization of Apricot Kernel Shell Biochar and Its Adsorption Mechanism for Atrazine
, Bingjian Yan 2, Jinhua Liu 1, Sinan Wang 1, Qi Li 1 and Mengmeng Zhou 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title
Start each word with a capital letter
Abstract
Line 11: in this paper …….. in this study
References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.
Introduction
Line 32: soil pollution ….. soil contamination
The introduction is too long. It can be reduced by the reduction of review literature details.
Create a paragraph and explain the aims of the study at the end of the Introduction section.
Materials and Methods
Line 120: methods in capital letter … Methods
Line 121: materials in capital letter … Materials
Line 122: add longitude and latitude of city.
Add reference for each method. Lines 146, 158, 166, and etc.
Lien 184: rephrase this sentence.
Results and discussion
Line 239: change 2 to 3. Results and discussion
Capital letter for Discussion.
Line 241: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images
Lines 252- 253: add these details in Figure 1.
Line 254: add magnification of SEM
Improve discussion in some parts.
Conclusion
Write Conclusion in sentences. Not as items.
Lines 476 and 482: delete highlight and graphic
Graphic abstract can upload a new file in JPG format.
References
Update all references based on journal format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thank you for taking so much time on reviewing my manuscript and giving me so many sincere comments. I have carefully revised all your suggestions as follows. Substantia revision were made (Please reference to "Red marked in the revised manuscript").
The problem（1）: Start each word with a capital letter.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（2）: Line 11: in this paper …….. in this study.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（3）: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（4）: Line 32: soil pollution ….. soil contamination .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（5）: The introduction is too long. It can be reduced by the reduction of review literature details.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（6）: Create a paragraph and explain the aims of the study at the end of the Introduction section.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
In this study, apricot shell was used as a raw material to prepare hydrothermal carbon, and the adsorption behaviour of atrazine was studied. The adsorption capacity was evaluated by a kinetic model and thermodynamic model, and the adsorption mechanism was revealed. The results provide a theoretical basis for the preparation of agricultural waste apricot shell biochar and its adsorption performance for atrazine, as well as a reference for its application in remediating agricultural non-point source pollution. This study provides a research basis for applications related to pesticide residue pollution control.
The problem（7）: Line 120: methods in capital letter … Methods
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（8）: Line 121: materials in capital letter … Materials
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（9）: Line 122: add longitude and latitude of city. .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully added in the revised manuscript.
(E123.19924, N45.84779)
The problem（10）: Add reference for each method. Lines 146, 158, 166, and etc.
Answer: Thanks. These methods are so basic that there is no need to list references for each method.
The problem（11）: Lien 184: rephrase this sentence. .
Answer: This sentence was rephrased carfully.
Origin 2019 software was used to draw the figures. SPSS 20.0 software was used to analyze the significance of experimental data (P＜0.05).
The problem（12）: Line 239: change 2 to 3.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（13）: Capital letter for Discussion.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（14）: Line 241: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（15）: Lines 252- 253: add these details in Figure 1 .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（16）: Line 254: add magnification of SEM .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript. Please check the scale bar on the picture in detail.
The problem（17）: Improve discussion in some parts.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（18）: Write Conclusion in sentences. Not as items.
Lines 476 and 482: delete highlight and graphic .
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（19）: Graphic abstract can upload a new file in JPG format.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem（20）: Update all references based on journal format.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
L31-34 – Please cite the statements.
L67-74 – Please cite the statements
L127-135 – Section 2.2.1 – Did the authors use this process for the first time, if not please cite where was it used before.
Section 2.4: Please cite the methods if they have been used before
L263 – 265 – Please cite a study based on which you concluded the functional group.
L279 – 280 – Please cite this conclusion.
L318 – 319 – Please cite this conclusion.
Figure 4: Please try having a common y-axis for the graphs, the figure would be aesthetically better.
Figure 5: Please try having a common y-axis and same scale for the graphs.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript and give me the sincere comment. I have carefully revised all your suggestions as follows. Substantia revision were made (Please reference to "Blue marked in the revised manuscript").
The problem（1）: L31-34 – Please cite the statements.
Answer: Thanks. It was added in the revised manuscript.
[1] Kankam, F. Causes and management of pesticides contamination in agriculture: A review. 2021. [DOI: 10.47881/265.967x]
The problem（2）: L67-74 – Please cite the statements
Answer: Thanks. It were added in the revised manuscript.
[17] Ni, N.; Kong, D.; Wu, W.; Jian, H. The Role of Biochar in Reducing the Bioavailability and Migration of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil–Plant Systems: A Review. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2020, 104 (5). [DOI: 10.1007/s00128- 019- 02779- 8]
[18] Jeyasubramanian, K., Thangagiri, B., Sakthivel, A., Raja, J. D., Rathika, B. A complete review on biochar: Production, property, multifaceted applications, interaction mechanism and computational approach. Fuel, 2021, 292(1): 120243. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120243]
The problem（3）: L127-135 – Section 2.2.1 – Did the authors use this process for the first time, if not please cite where was it used before.
Answer: we use this process for the first time.
The problem（4）:Section 2.4: Please cite the methods if they have been used before.
Answer: Thanks. It was added in the revised manuscript.
[29] Zhou, M. M.; Zhang, Z. Z.; Zhao, Q. H.; Shao, W. Z.; Zhao, S. C.; Chang, H. B.; Yang, J. M.; Preparation of Hydrothermal Carbon of Cornstalks and Its Adsorption of Atrazine in Water. Journal of Jilin University (Science Edition), 2021, 59(4): 10. [DOI: 10.13413/j.cnki.jdxblxb.2020314]
The problem（5）: L263 – 265 – Please cite a study based on which you concluded the functional group.
Answer: Thanks. It were added in the revised manuscript.
[36] Reza, M. T.; Lynam, J. G.; Uddin, M. H.; Coronella, C. J. Hydrothermal carbonization: fate of inorganics. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2013, 49(feb.), 86-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.004]
[37] Malghani, S.; Gleixner, G.; Trumbore, S. E. Chars produced by slow pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization vary in carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gases emissions. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2013, 62:137-146. [DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.03.013]
The problem（6）: L279 – 280 – Please cite this conclusion.
Answer: Thanks. It was added in the revised manuscript.
[17] Ni, N.; Kong, D.; Wu, W.; Jian, H. The Role of Biochar in Reducing the Bioavailability and Migration of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil–Plant Systems: A Review. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2020, 104 (5). [DOI: 10.1007/s00128- 019- 02779- 8]
The problem（7）: L318 – 319 – Please cite this conclusion.
Answer: Thanks. It were added in the revised manuscript.
[43] Anyika, C.; Majid, Z. A.; Ibrahim, Z.; Zakaria, M. P.; Yahya, A. The impact of biochars on sorption and biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils—a review. Environmental Science&Pollution Research. 2015. [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3719-5]
[44] Sun, Z.; Xu, J.; Wang, G.; Song, A.; Zheng, S. Hydrothermal fabrication of rectorite based biocomposite modified by chitosan derived carbon nanoparticles as efficient mycotoxins adsorbents. Applied Clay Science, 2019, 184, 105373. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2019.105373]
The problem（8）: Figure 4: Please try having a common y-axis for the graphs, the figure would be aesthetically better.
Answer: Thanks for your good advice. I think this graphs was more intuitive to reflect the data.
The problem（9）: Figure 5: Please try having a common y-axis and same scale for the graphs.
Answer: Thanks for your good advice. I think this graphs was more intuitive to reflect the data.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The title may be amended to reflect the evaluation of potential use of apricot kernel shell biochar in remediation of atrazine contaminated soils/ water.
2. The abstract should be specific on techniques used, indicate the objective of the study, and include a brief description / summary of methodology.
3. Many sections in the introduction require editing.
4. Section 2.5 should be combined with section 2.3.1
5. The results of section 2.1.1 have not been discussed
6. The numbering of the results and discussion is conflicting that of the materials and method - thay have a similar numbering
7. All the tables and figures should be cited in the text.
8. Headings of most sections in the results and discussion require revision.
9. Minor editing for English language and flow
Detailed comments are also provided in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript and give me the sincere comment. I have carefully revised all your suggestions as follows. Substantia revision were made (Please reference to "green marked in the revised manuscript").
The problem (1): The title may be amended to reflect the evaluation of potential use of apricot kernel shell biochar in remediation of atrazine contaminated soils/ water.
Answer: Thanks for your good advice. This study focuses on the mechanism of atrazine adsorption by apricot kernel shell biochar, rather than the evaluation study.
The problem (2): The abstract should be specific on techniques used, indicate the objective of the study, and include a brief description / summary of methodology.
Answer: The abstract was revised based on the opinions of three Reviewer.
The problem (3): Many sections in the introduction require editing.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (4): Section 2.5 should be combined with section 2.3.1
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (5): The results of section 2.1.1 have not been discussed.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (6): The numbering of the results and discussion is conflicting that of the materials and method - thay have a similar numbering
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (7): All the tables and figures should be cited in the text.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (8): Headings of most sections in the results and discussion require revision.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (9): Minor editing for English language and flow
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (10): Detailed comments are also provided in the attached document.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I have evaluated the manuscript, “Preparation and characterization of apricot kernel shell hydrothermal carbon microspheres and their adsorption mechanism for atrazine”. The authors have claimed the possibility of using apricot biochar kernel to reduce pollution caused by byproducts of atrazine. The authors concluded that biochar prepared from apricot shells, an agricultural waste, exhibits good adsorption performance for atrazine and has good application prospects in addressing agricultural non-point source pollution, especially in pesticide residue pollution control. The manuscript adds significant knowledge to the field. However, several modifications are needed to bring the manuscript in publishable form. The recommendations are as under;
- The word biochar must be used in the title instead of hydrothermal carbon microspheres
- The language of the manuscript needs a careful checking. There are plenty of long sentences which must be split in order to improve overall readability. This is probably due to translation. For example, the researchers at home and abroad is not a scientific expression.
- There are redundant sentences in the manuscript (please see attached annotated manuscript).
- The rationale is somewhat incomplete. The authors have not provided the examples where biochars have been used to lower the toxicity of herbicides
- The references are not cited according to journal rules
- The last paragraph of introduction is speculative. It must contain specific-specific objectives and hypothesis. Further, the results must clarify whether the objectives were achieved and hypothesis proved wrong or right
- The word hydrothermal carbon is speculation of simple biochar. Please change it to biochar throughout the manuscript
- Statistical analysis deserves a better explanation. Details regarding normality and homogeneity of variance are missing.
- The results and discussion sections have been combined in the manuscript. Please separate both sections.
- Excessive number of abbreviations have been used in the manuscript. However, the authors did not bother to provide full form of most of these. Please provide full form of each abbreviation when first used in the experiment
- The procedures to record several results have not been described in MM. For example, FTIR, element analysis etc.
- Conclusion must not be numbered. The key take-home messages must be clear, short and brief.
- The manuscript can be accepted after these changes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4:
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript and give me the sincere comment. I have carefully revised all your suggestions as follows. Substantia revision were made (Please reference to "yellow marked in the revised manuscript").
The problem (1): The word biochar must be used in the title instead of hydrothermal carbon microspheres.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (2): The language of the manuscript needs a careful checking. There are plenty of long sentences which must be split in order to improve overall readability. This is probably due to translation. For example, the researchers at home and abroad is not a scientific expression.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (3): There are redundant sentences in the manuscript (please see attached annotated manuscript).
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (4): The rationale is somewhat incomplete. The authors have not provided the examples where biochars have been used to lower the toxicity of herbicides
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (5): The references are not cited according to journal rules
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (6): The last paragraph of introduction is speculative. It must contain specific-specific objectives and hypothesis. Further, the results must clarify whether the objectives were achieved and hypothesis proved wrong or right
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (7): The word hydrothermal carbon is speculation of simple biochar. Please change it to biochar throughout the manuscript
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (8): Statistical analysis deserves a better explanation. Details regarding normality and homogeneity of variance are missing.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (9): The results and discussion sections have been combined in the manuscript. Please separate both sections.
Answer: The results and discussion are discussed together, which is more targeted. Therefore, this study adopts this method.
The problem (10): Excessive number of abbreviations have been used in the manuscript. However, the authors did not bother to provide full form of most of these. Please provide full form of each abbreviation when first used in the experiment
Answer: Thanks. It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (11): The procedures to record several results have not been described in MM. For example, FTIR, element analysis etc.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
The problem (12): Conclusion must not be numbered. The key take-home messages must be clear, short and brief.
Answer: Thanks, It was carefully revised in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript and give me the sincere comment. I have carefully revised all your suggestions as follows.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have done a great job to revise the manuscript. Therefore, it can be accepted in the current form.
