Efficient Organic Pollutant Removal by Bio/MNs Collaborating with Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper describes the Efficient Organic Pollutant Removing by Bio/MNs Collaborates with Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. After reviewing it, I think it can be consider to publish if the following issues are solved:
1. For the sem images, the element mappings should be provided.
2. For the xrd patterns, the jcpds card should be combined in the figure.
3. The deep mechanism should be provided by the radicals trapping experiments.
4. The ftir and xps data is also necessary for this work.
5. Some relevant papers should be cited：Separation and Purification Technology 302, 122090；Langmuir 38 (42), 12739-12756.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please view the file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report: sustainability-2558351
The findings could be interesting for researchers. However, following comments should be addressed before proceeding this manuscript for further. Authors are highly recommended to correct manuscript as per following suggestions for enhancing readability and reproducibility of results.
1. Keywords should be arranged in alphabetical order.
2. Abbreviations used throughput the manuscript needs to be defined the first time they are used in the abstract and/or other sections.
3. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented in the last paragraph of introduction section.
4. The following references maybe helpful for this paper and recommended to be cited.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130718; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144751; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135063;
5. Will the authors expect the developed material can also be used to decontamination of water and wastewater, which have physico-chemical and biological properties different from those of distilled water used? What is the effect of water matrix on its potential practical application?
6. What is the possible coupled developed material with conventional and economically water and wastewater treatment? and/or the use of proposed material is economically?
7. As a decontaminant, it is very necessary to do the research of regeneration, and the recycle stability. Have the developed material effective after regeneration and multiple reuse cycle?
8. How many replicates have been done for each assay. Please indicate it in the related sections.
9. There are no information about statistical data analysis, software used for drawing figure, etc. Also, there are several aspects of the analysis of the data that should be present in the paper. What model was used?
10. In most part of result and discussion section, authors only have introduced the results and I was not able to find any discussion about the results. I highly recommend the authors to compare their results with previous studies.
Author Response
Please view the file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Sustainability-2558351
This manuscript deals with the synthesis, characterization and catalytic activity of a
Bio/MNs Collaborates with Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Characterization and experimental tests were performed in-depth. However, the discussion part needs more illustration, And The manuscript should be improved before being accepted for publications process.
1. There are a lot of typo and grammar.
Introduction sections:
2. The introduction is presented in general information.
3. As shown in line from #66-90 about the catalyst biochar-based such as pine biochar, Fe3O4/lignin nanoparticles loaded 78 with biochar… But what lead authors investigate the biochar producing from rice husk (line # 104), but I think that the author prepared biochar from corncob.
4. As presented in line #87-90 about the potential of using of electrogenic microorganisms as co-degradation of organic pollutants. But what lead author choose the P. aeruginosa PAO1.
Materials and Methods
5. What is wavelength and power of LED
6. The experiment was conducted in a 100 mL conical flask. How to irradiate above the head of the 100 mL conical flask.
7. Is there any stirring step during conducting the experiment?
Results and Discussion
8. SEM mapping and SEM-EDS should be provided for biochar and Bio/MNs samples.
9. The present of Fe2O3 in the samples as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, the effect of Fe2O3 on the photocatalytic degradation of MB should be discussed in detail.
10. Line # 202- 203, what is …+L, …+D. The symbol should be clarified.
11. What are conditions of experiments as shown in Fig 3-6? Authors should make is as clear as possible.
12. The second column in the table 2-4 is redundance.
13. The zeta potential of the sample should be provided to discuss the effect of pH on photocatalytic degradation of MB.
14. The author should conduct some extra experiments to clarify which radical is predominance in the photocatalytic process.
15. The role of P. aeruginosa PAO1 should be evidence/ proved.
16. The XPS analysis is required.
17. The stability of the samples should be examined. And the XRD of the used samples should be provided.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please view the file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is well revised and can be accepted now.
Author Response
Thank you very much
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor,
Thanks for inviting me to re-evaluation of this paper. From my point of view this paper is ready to be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you very much
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have tried to revise and respond the comments, but the revised version has some importance issues that need to be revised. I do not accept the revised version.
1. what lead authors investigate the biochar producing from corncob in this research.
2. The authors “did not light from the top of the conical bottle”, but which position of the conical bottle was irradiated (or how to irradiation the solution).
3. As mentioned, “Before the experiment started, all kinds of experimental materials were put into a conical bottle with MB and left for 1h. This process is not stirred, the main purpose is to allow biochar adsorption MB”. I do not agree with this explanation, the purpose of the adsorption step is to get an adsorption-desorption equilibrium. In case of without stirring, how did authors design the time to get equilibrium before irradiation, please show your evidence.
4. SEM mapping and SEM-EDS should be provided for biochar and Bio/MNs samples. I agree with the suggestion of reviewer #1. The authors have to solve this problem.
5. The author state that “in order to avoid ambiguity and mechanism confusion, according to your comments, we have redrawn the XRD pattern, and only Fe3O4 is marked in the diagram”. I do not agree with this explanation, as shown in the previous version, the XRD pattern shown the present of Fe2O3 phase. Therefore, the Authors must discuss/explain, do not redrawn a new pattern. The samples authors used for investigating the properties in term of Pollutant Removing is the previous samples, it is not the new sample.
6. The zeta potential of the sample should be provided to discuss the effect of pH on photocatalytic degradation of MB.
7. The author should conduct some extra experiments to clarify which radical is predominance in the photocatalytic process. I agree with the suggestion of reviewer #1. Author cannot propose mechanism without the radicals trapping experiments.
8. For the XPS analysis and discussion, the authors should provide the deconvolution of the Fe’s high-resolution spectra to explain the binding energy corresponding to the different valence states of Fe cations.
9. The authors should provide the describing of stability test in the experimental section.
Author Response
Please look the file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your revise, most of issue has been addressed. Thereafter, I can recommend accepting this version.
