拒了 郁闷啊
Dear ****I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal
is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the
attached review reports (and on [url]http://ees.elsevier.com/chem/[/url]). I hope
that the comments contained therein will be of use to you.Thank you for your interest in our journal
COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS
Reviewer #1: - The topic of this manuscript is suitable for this
journal. *** is one of the chemical treatment processes that has
been demonstrated to be effective for the removal of various organic
substances from water. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies
in the literature on ozonation process for the removal of natural
organic matter in water. More, some of these studies presented a very detail
work on reaction mechanisms and kinetics. There has been an appreciable
amount of progress achieved in the research on ozonation of natural
organics. Some of references are : Xiong et al., 1992; Westerhoff et al.
1999b, Baret et al., 2000, Staehelin and Hoigne, 1985, Hoigne and
Bader, 1976, Hoigne and Bader, 1979, Allamane et al. 1993 etc).
- The experimental error range was not given. The authors should
definitely indicate the level of significance for the values of their
experimental results, especially, while describing the effect of the
parameters on the removal efficiencies and rates. Hence, significances for
differences between the values (for the rate constants or removal
efficiencies) are observed to be unclear. (e.i; pH was claimed to be
insignificant for k values 1.2 to 1.5 x 10-3,On the other hand, temp effect on k
was suggested to be different for the values 3.6 and 3.3 x 10-3.)
- While developing the rate equation for organic decomposition, [O3]
was assumed to be excess in water. Hence, [O3] was assumed to be constant
during the reactions and included in the constant term k. Did the
authors measure ozone concentrations in water? We know that solubility of
ozone is limited in water. This assumption might not be valid under the
applied experimental conditions. I strongly think that ozone
concentration is one of the important parameters that has to be measured in
water during the reactions.
- The authors observed that biodegradability was improved by the
ozonation of the humic samples. Conversion of organic matter from
non-biodegradable to bio-degradable forms brings a disadvantage to the water
treatment system. We don't accept biologically enhanced water in our water
distribution systems. The comment on the use of biodegradable formations
in wastewater treatment is irrelevant with the topic of this
manuscript.
- Why did the authors compare 1,3,6-naphthalenetrisulfonic acid with
humic substances? What are the similarities and differences between the
two substances? The authors suggested that the removal efficiencies for
the two materials are different due to the presence of carbonates in
one of them. Where does this carbonate come from?. What did they use for
the pH adjustments?. if carbonates were not present in the solutions,
would the removal efficiencies be similar? Besides, the effect of
carbonates in OH. reactions are well known.
说的一点面子都不给啊，真是郁闷。
可是这个期刊给消息比较快，我还是打算修改好了接着投该期刊，问问大家有什么意见，如果我继续投好不好，欢迎大家给意见！
如果我换期刊投，那么我是不是还是推荐原来的审稿人，还是全部换掉，有什么利弊？谢谢大家!
页:
[1]