Removal of Taste and Odor Compounds from Water: Methods, Mechanism and Prospects
, Xiaohui Li 1, Tingting Liu 1, Xiang Li 1, Yi Cui 1, Ling Xu 1,2, Shuhao Huo 1,2, Bin Zou 1, Jingya Qian 1, Anzhou Ma 3 and Guoqiang Zhuang 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review entitled “Removal of taste and odor compounds from water: methods, mechanism and prospects” by Feng Wang and co-authors describes chemical, physical and biological methods of degradation of taste and odor (T&O) compounds in drinking water. Goals of the review belong to the aims of Catalysts. Therefore, I believe that the review can be published in Catalysts but major revision is required. Please, find my comments below.
1. A list of abbreviations needs to be added.
2. Very short description of GSM and 2-MIB is presented in line 150. However, the decrease of its concentration in water was described above. So, I strongly recommend authors to introduce a chapter that lists and describes properties of taste and odor compounds.
3. The review can be extended by discussion of research provided by Efremenko E.N.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carried out a comprehensive review of the state of the art technologies available for the treatment of compounds that cause odour and taste in drinking water. The review needs to be improved and completed in many of its sections. It is recommended that the authors rewrite the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions.
1. Add as a keyword: "drinking water" and replace "removal methods" with "removal technologies".
2. In the Introduction it should be clearly mentioned that both GSM and 2-MIB are indicator compounds for possible water contamination.
3. Before including treatment methods based on advanced oxidation, it is recommended to include the optimisation of the coagulation-flocculation-decantation process. Mention this by including any operating conditions and most common coagulant/flocculant used in treatment plants.
4. The statement on line 67 should be clarified. This is only true when chlorination takes place and there are precursor substances that have not been adequately removed.
5. The introduction is a short for a review. Membrane separation processes and/or their possible integration with chemical or biological processes are missing.
6. Review line 100. It should provide more information with extra information about the use of PAC as a coadjuvant in decantation. Enhancing the operation of primary processes can remove many of these compounds.
7. Complete Table 1 with the specifications of the adsorbent (specific surface area, basicity, etc.). This is very important in order to compare efficiencies.
8. Section 2.2 is incomplete; it should be included catalytic processes such as catalytic ozonation or photocatalytic ozonation. Table 2 should be completed accordingly.
9. In Section 3.1, the technologies corresponding to the biological treatments are missing. Do not just describe the biological degradation process in a generic way. It should be included MBR, MBBR, MABR, and the combination with activated carbon.
10. The conclusions are not supported by the information provided in the previous sections, especially concerning biological processes. The conclusions need more precision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your responses. I think that your review can be accepted for publication.Reviewer 2 Report
The authors significantly improved the review article as indicated. Consequently, I suggest its acceptance for publication.
