The Role of Fungal Fuel Cells in Energy Production and the Removal of Pollutants from Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the paper entitled 'A Review on Role of Fungal Fuel Cell and Catalysts in Energy Production and Removal of Pollutants from Wastewater'.

The paper has good theme and written well. Some major changes are required before the acceptance.

1. Title should be simplified. The word 'a review' does not look good. So I suggest to modify the title of this paper and make it simple.

2. Abstract must contain some important data which are reported in the main manuscript. The outcomes and the research gap of this review should be clearly stated in the last line of the abstract.

3. Your clear objective is not mentioned in the introduction section. It must be there. 

4. In the introduction section, the data from the previously reported literature should be added and explained in detail. 

5. All the figures must be explained in detail. 

6. I am surprised to see that the conclusion has not been written. Please add a brief conclusion and summary of your review at the end your review. 

7. References are not arranged in a proper way. Please do it very carefully.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The file is attached for the reviewer response.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “A Review on Role of Fungal Fuel Cell and Catalysts in Energy Production and Removal of Pollutants from Wastewater”, as a review, cited references are not enough for the progress of current manuscript topic. Although the topic is interesting, the manuscript is not discussed the latest research process. Unfortunately, I could not recommend the manuscript to be published in Catalysts.

1.        Lines 119-123: How does these factors influence the fungal growth and metabolism?

2.        Line 238: Is the MFC stands for fuel cell?

3.        Lines 271-274: The author should describe the content of these references, such as the result in the references.

4.        Lines 279-293: These degradation methods should be discussed.

5.        References: No rules, the format is too random.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The file for reviewer comments are attached here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

It seems that the authors have revised the paper as per the suggestions. My recommendation is 'Accept'.

Author Response

Kindly open the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Why are there different authors in the revised manuscript compared with the original manuscript, and added a new corresponding author in the revised manuscript?

2. Lines 75-80: It seems that the added objectives are not suitable for this manuscript.

3. Authors should add more references published in the lastest 3-5 years.

Author Response

Kindly open the attached file of response to Respected Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf