Response to Reviewer Comments

1.

Dear Prof. XXXX,

Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper

submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).

We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here

the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.

If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. XXXX

Response to Reviewer 1:

Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your

comments:

1. XXXXXXX

2. XXXXXXX

2.

Dear Professor ***,

Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)

by ***

Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above

paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have

learned much from it.

After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made

corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.

If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account

is ***, and ***, and Fax is +***.

Yours sincerely,

Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s advice

Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much

from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully

proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.

Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.

3.

The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the

text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant

regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers,

and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to

each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the

revision.

Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.

List of Major Changes:

1).........

2).........

3).........

Response to Reviewers:

1).........

2).........

3).........

Response to Reviewer XX

We very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of

the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript

accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:

1) XX

2) XX

Detailed responses

1) XX

2) XX

4.

Dear editor XX

We have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the

comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the

detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.

Sincerely yours,

XX

5.

Response to Reviewer A

Reviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr.

Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both

reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and

those of the other reviewer .

Response to Specific Points

What follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the

other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points

will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to

Psychological Review.

Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:

In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was

discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific

differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of

perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the

basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special

`veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of

concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model

of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the

alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are

used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted

elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance

accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose

a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or

any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a

theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties,

as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is

eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory

phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic

resonance mechanism.

In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of

Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and

"I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7)

"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most

reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at

first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this

a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult

concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this

rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this

paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the

HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection

paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not

individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant

edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the

section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not

simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a

higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which

the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by

the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as

perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this

reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The

remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical,

or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration

allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This

explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author

demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can

only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic

considerations that can be used to make the case.

In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p. 7)

"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most

reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at

first, will often be a bit vague."

Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)

"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by

direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a

kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory,

the hypothesis of atomic disinte gra

……….., Ph.D. Professor

Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and

Ecological Environment Research,

Huazhong Agricultural University,

Wuhan, 430070,

E-mail: .....................

Jun 10, 2009

RE: HAZMAT-D-09-00655

Dear Editor，

We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and

also thank the reviewers for giving us constructive suggestions which would help us

both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Here we submit a

new version of our manuscript with the title “………………………”, which has been

modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct

the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. We mark all the changes in

red in the revised manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

……………….., Ph.D. Professor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a point-to-point response to the two reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer #1:

General comments:

Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting experimental investigation to assess

the photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene plastic with goethite under UV

irradiation. The research work is clearly presented but the conclusions, the

introduction and other parts of the paper relate the results obtained with unjustified

claims about the impact of the work. In addition, the background information

provided in the introduction part needs significant enrichment. In particular:

Answer: Thank you for the comments on the paper. We have revised the manuscript

as suggested since we consider that some sentences or descriptions in the Conclusion

part are not so accurate based on the results.

Page 3, line 46: recycling is not available…

Even though a large amount of agricultural plastic waste in burnt or buried in the

fields, some quantities of specific categories of good quality agricultural plastic waste

are recycled in several countries while research efforts and projects are in progress to

improve the corresponding percentage. The authors should refer to the corresponding

recent literature.

Answer:Yes. Your opinions inspired us and we revised the manuscript accordingly. In

the revised paper, the sentence “Recycling is not available for economy,” was

changed to “In order to reduce costs, the thickness of application agriculture films in

some regions in China is less than 0.005 mm result in diffcult to recycle, And because

the process of recycling is expensive and time-consuming, only a small percentage of

the agricultural plastic waste is currently recycled at the end of cultivation in China

[4]”(Page 3 line 49-52).

Page 3, line 76: biodegradable and photodegradable….

There are developments in the area of biodegradable materials that indicate the

opposite. Concerning photodegradable materials, they are not considered to represent

a solution as they have not been proven to be biodegradable. The authors should refer

to the corresponding recent literature.

Answer: Thank you for reminding us the improper description on the study. We have

the improper parts revised accordingly and hope that this new manuscript will be

convincing ( Page 3 line 52-55).

Page 4, line 65: find an eco-friendly….

The best eco-friendly disposal for agricultural plastic waste is recycling and for

non-recyclable materials, energy recovery. Degrading materials produced from fossil

sources is not an eco-friendly disposal! The authors should refer to the corresponding

recent literature.

Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that some of the

descriptions in the previous copy were really not so accurate and a little bit arbitrary

due to our poor English level and the study on recent literature. After consulting more

references, we therefore revised paper to be more reasonable and convincing.

Page 4, line 66: to carbon dioxide and water….

Conversion of fossil oil based materials into carbon dioxide and water is much worse

than converting renewable-based materials into carbon dioxide and water

Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description

in the previous copy were not accurate, due to our poor study on recent literature. The

sentence “it is very important to find an eco-friendly disposal of plastic waste where

they degrade to carbon dioxide and water under the sunlight irradiation without

producing toxic byproducts.” has been deleted.

Page 6, line 112: volatile products….

Define the products.

Answer: We have defined the volatile products in Page 6 line 124-125.

Page 9, line 185: eco-friendly disposal….

The claims of the authors that this technique is an eco-friendly one are not justified.

The conclusions and other parts of the paper need to be rewritten and limit the scope

of the presented research work to the technical objectives without deriving unjustified

general conclusions and claims about the impact of this work.

Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description

in the previous copy were not accurate. The sentence “The development of this kind

of composite polymer can lead to an eco-friendly disposal of polymer wastes.” was

changed to “The present paper intends to study goethite as photocatalytst for

degradating plastic. Further attention could be focused on the application of the

technique.” (Page 9 line 192-194).

Reviewer #3:

1. Title and abstract should indicate that the work has been done with PE-Goethite

composite film.

Answer: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We agree and therefore change the

title to: Solid-phase photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene–goethite composite

film under UV-light irradiation.

2. Please revise the first paragraph of 'Introduction'. It is difficult to understand. In

general, the language of the paper should be revisited.

Answer: The Introduction part has been rewritten both in contents and in English. We

particularly revised some sentences since they are not correct or so confusing.

3. Materials and methods - Details of the chemicals to be furnished

Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the details of

the chemicals has been shown in Page 4 line 79-83.

4. Characterization are required for PE (Molecular weight, grade) and Goethite

prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM-EDS and XRD)

Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the

characterization for PE has been shown in Page 4 line 79. The Goethite prepared

(particle size, BET surface area, SEM and XRD) has been reported by Liao et al.

(2007), We clarify that in the revised manuscript in Page 5 line 91-93.

5. A schematic diagram of the experimental set up to be given

Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and a schematic

diagram of the experimental has been given in Fig. 1 in the present paper. The

original Fig. 1. was changed to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

6. Results - A rate equation should be proposed from the time-weight data

Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the rate

equation a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Table. 1in the

present paper.

7. A few data are required to show the influence of process parameters such as

goethite loading, intensity of UV radiation.

Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the influence of

goethite loading has been shown in Fig. 2 in the present paper. And the influence of

intensity of UV radiation has been shown in Fig. 3 in the present paper. The original

Fig. 2 was changed to Fig. 4 and The original Fig. 3 was changed to Fig. 5 in the

present paper.

8. Until other intermediates are isolated, upto Eqn.(7) (line 162) is sufficient.

Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and We changed the

Eqns as recommended. Eqs. (8)-(12) are deleted and Eqn.(7) was change to “–(CH2CH2)– +

.OH → degradationproducts” (Page 9 line 184).

9. Figure 3 and 4: 3 pairs are required, namely (i) Only PE film before and after

irradiation, (ii) PE-Goethite film (0.4wt %) - before and after irradiation (iii)

PE-Goethite film (1.0 wt %) - before and after irradiation.

Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the original Fig. 3

and 4 was changed to Fig .5 in the present paper.

10. Point 3 above is also applicable for SEM photographs. Please rearrange and

clearly mark the difference between the films before and after irradiation for both

SEM and FTIR results.

Answer: Thank the reviewer and editor’s for the comments. During the revision of the

paper, we did a supplementary experiment got some new SEM photographs, which

has been shown in Fig. 4 in the present paper. And The FTIR results has been

rearranged in Fig.5 in the present paper, respectively.

11. It should be clearly mentioned in the conclusion that the degradation was more

when goethite loading and intensity of light both were more

Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the

conclusions has been changed in Page 9 line 192-198.