回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见

回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer ……….., 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 econ omy,” 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….