Adsorption Process and Properties Analyses of a Pure Magadiite and a Modified Magadiite on Rhodamine-B from an Aqueous Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to deeply correct the paper for its publication. In some paragraphs, the English is poor and even hampers the comprehension of the manuscript. There are shortcuts in the results interpretation involving dubious discussion. Below are listed some remarks illustrating these remarks.

I can hardly understand the structure of MAG in Figure 1, as MAG is made of silica tetrahedra while the scheme presents squares and octahedra.

For the preparation of CTAB-MAG, the masses of CTAB and MAG are mentioned. It would be worth to give the CTAB/Si atomic ratio to consider whether the CTAB functionalization is huge or not. Furthermore, the washing, filtering and drying processes must be more detailed (wash with what? Which kind of filter? Dried at which temperature, with which set-up, how long?...)

2.4.3. Layered silicate minerals are generally soluble under acidic conditions. What about MAG? Isn’t it a problem to work at pH 4, 6 and even 7? Could the authors precise the solubility versus pH for MAG (with literature data)?

3.1.1. The authors must be cautious interpreting XRD data at low angles. Were the analyses performed with a small angle diffractometer? This is compulsory to observe low angle reflections, otherwise misunderstanding is probable. In the CTAB-MAG sample, the reflection at 5.809° is still visible. How do the authors interpret this result?

3.1.2. The FT-IR analyses prove that MAG and CTAB are present in the sample, but not that CTAB is inserted into the MAG interlayer

3.1.3. Several remarks on the SEM pictures:

- The particles are nanometer grade in the z direction of the crystals, not in the two other directions in which they are micrometer grade.

- What are these fluffy nanoparticles embedded with the MAG platelets?

- I am sorry but I cannot see the strip of the CTAB-MAG laminates upon the change in atomic layer

spacing

3.2.2. Langmuir meilleur que Freundlich car r² = 0.99 au lieu de 0.98…

The authors assess the Langmuir and Freundlich adsorption models. Both models give very good results with R² close to 1. In my opinion, this is meaningless since the different models have been established to describe different adsorption mechanisms (one kind of site adsorption for Langmuir, heterogeneous adsorption for Freundlich). So, please discuss the fact that the two models well-fit the experimental data (maybe a critique of the application of such models could be invoked). Furthermore, it is hazardous to write that Langmuir fits better because the R² is 0.99 while it is 0.98 in the case of the Freundlich model. A R² of 0.99 or 0.98 is the same. The difference originates in the accuracy of the experimental data.

3.2.3. I know less the kinetics models than the isotherm ones, but I have the feeling that my remarks about the isotherm models can be extended to the application of these kinetics model. Moreover, can the authors justify why they did not plot ln((qeq-qt)/qe) versus time which directly comes from equation 5 instead of ln(qeq-qt)) versus time in Figure 7a? I have the same question for Figure 7b with for time instead of time/qeq in the x-axis.

3.2.4. what is F ?

Author Response

Manuscript Number: processes- 559443

“Adsorption Process and Properties Analyses of a Pure Magadiite and a Modified Magadiite on Rhodamine-B from Aqueous Solution”

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments of our paper. The reviewer comments have been revised for kind looking. The revised texts have been marked with Red and Yellow colour in the manuscript. I would like to request the reviewer to have screening the manuscript. Changed and revised responses shown in below for your kind looking.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It's a very interesting article.

Author Response

Manuscript Number: processes- 559443

“Adsorption Process and Properties Analyses of a Pure Magadiite and a Modified Magadiite on Rhodamine-B from Aqueous Solution”

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments of our paper. The reviewer comments have been revised for kind looking. The revised texts have been marked with Red and Yellow colour in the manuscript. I would like to request the reviewer to have screening the manuscript. Changed and revised responses shown in below for your kind looking.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

The authors reported the Adsorption Properties Analyses of a Pure Magadiite and a Modified Magadiite On Rhodamine-B from Aqueous Solution. It is a very interesting topic, Although I considered the work good to publish.

1- In my opinion authors should extensively changed both introduction and conlusions sections to justify a novelty of their concepts.

2- The authors adjusted pH but they doesn't present the solutions used. 

3- ligne 181. authors write that langmuir model were larger than the correlation coefficients in the freunldlich model. The value found with langmuir model are 0.99 and 0.993 and with freundlich are 0.984 and 0.987. I think that there is no differences between the value.

I think it's better to reformulate this part.

4-ligne 201: buy using the of the pseudo....

5-Authors found that the kinetic model was pseu-second order, it's interestig to present th meaning of the Kinetic order. 

6- The authors doesn't describe the physical texture of the precursor, SBET ? Are these powders or granules or flakes? What size? 

7- Please provide the chemical compositions of the adsorbents.

Author Response

Manuscript Number: processes- 559443

“Adsorption Process and Properties Analyses of a Pure Magadiite and a Modified Magadiite on Rhodamine-B from Aqueous Solution”

Thank you very much for your kind and valuable comments of our paper. The reviewer comments have been revised for kind looking. The revised texts have been marked with Red and Yellow colour in the manuscript. I would like to request the reviewer to have screening the manuscript. Changed and revised responses shown in below for your kind looking.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf