Integration of Photodegradation Process of Organic Micropollutants to a Vertically One-Dimensional Lake Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, photodegradation processes were integrated into vertical one-dimensional water quality models of lakes for the first time. After adjusting the code of the APEX (Aqueous Photochemistry of Environmentally occurring Xenobiotics), the suite of photochemical reactions was integrated into the pollutant module of MyLake (Multi-year Lake simulation), as MyLake-Photo. Using this model, it was calculated that phytoplankton biomass was negatively correlated with the photodegradation of pollutants, which was due to the absorption of light by chlorophyll. Thermal stratification also significantly affected the vertical distribution of OMPs. After that, ibuprofen was taken as an example to verify that the concentration of organic micropollutants varies with the season, which was mainly affected by the changes of irradiance and water temperature. This experiment provided help for us to study the pollution problem of organic micropollutants. However, there are some issues that need to be corrected before they can be considered for publication. The issues are listed as follows:
1. The article mentioned the importance of photochemical reactions in many aspects. Please give specific examples to demonstrate its importance.
2. There are many treatment technologies for PPCPs, such as adsorption, photocatalysis and microwave catalysis, should be introduced in the introduction. The new reviews and references on adsorption, photocatalytic purification and microwave catalysis of wastewater should be introduced and cited. Separation and Purification Technology, 307 (2023) 122716; Surfaces and Interfaces, 36 (2023) 102564; Journal of Catalysis 406 (2022) 9–18
3. Line 63 mentions that "there is no available process-based model simulating both hydrodynamics and the photodegradation kinetics of OMPs reflecting their interaction. "Please explain the feasibility and theoretical basis of this experimental model.
4. Why did you choose Giles Lake as an example? Explain why you chose this example.
5. Under moderate conditions, the photodegradation rate of EMIM was much higher than that of the other three OMPs. What is the reason for this phenomenon?
6. Some tense problems and grammatical problems in the article need to be further improve.
Author Response
We very much appreciate your effort on the careful reading and constructive comments. The attached document is the details of our response as well as the revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript title: Integration of photodegradation process of organic micropollutants to a vertically one-dimensional lake model
Manuscript id: sustainability-2169613
Authors: Chen, et al.
The manuscript is particularly strong regarding the less studied topic and the experimental setup on pollutants……. The manuscript regarding the topic and results presented is of interest to the environmental science community and revisions based on the comments below are recommended before considering for publication.
Major comments
· Insufficient Abstract: In the abstract, the main aim and background of the manuscript are missing, the current version it only highlights the result. In addition, it would be even better to have a sentence as a future perspective.
· The unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time…. Please check throughout the manuscript to define the abbreviations.
· Line 52-58, the approach of the study is clear, however, the overall aim or hypothesis is missing ….
· Lake of scientific literature to support the statements and findings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….
· More information is needed for ALL TABLE captions and define the abbreviation and units that are used. And adjust the significant figures for the table and manuscript.
· Grammar and punctuation issuers need to be addressed. I have selected/mentioned some as examples.
· I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe the results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still insufficient.
Detailed comments:
Abstract
If the unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time.
Line 8. Add ‘’ the’’ before water.
Line 9-10: A complicated sentence, you mixed water quality with the approach.
Introduction:
Line 34: are you sure that ‘’ ultraviolet radiation (UV) filters’’ classified as a pollutant?
Line 35: add natural compounds/phytotoxins, and use the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1021/es504342w
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01477
Line 49: A reference is needed here.
Line 63-66: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar
Line 63-69: A reference is needed here
Line 72-77: A reference is needed here
Line 82-85, 91-93: These are rather long sentences, better to break them down into more sentences.
In MM section
Literature references are missing for all sub-section. It would be better to cite the references that the procedure adopted.
Additional info is needed for the table caption, most importantly significant figures.
In MM section, what is the quality control (QC) data? There is no mention of the QC.
In general, how many times you’ve recorded the data,? duplicate? Triplicate?..... what you mentioned in the text is not clear, please elaborate more on this
R&D section
These sections are repeating information already presented and explain things in an unnecessarily complicated way. The quality of the manuscript would benefit from the whole section being condensed, Line 281-291, Line 335-351, Line 371-401, Line 431-464…
Figure 4. What did you mean by constant temperature??
Figures 5 and 7. I think it’s better to move the title letters (a, b, c, d) to a corner or above the figure. Having them in the middle of the figure is not common.
Conclusion
Important conclusions! However, the future perspectives for the following research are highly crucial here …..
Author Response
We very much appreciate your effort on the careful reading and constructive comments. The attached document is the details of our response as well as the revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
some references are wrong, please revise. year is wrong. volume is missing such as 13, Separation and Purification Technology, 307 (2023) 122716; 14, Surfaces and Interfaces, 36 (2023) 102564
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has improved compared to the original version. The authors tried to address my questions as much as possible. I recommend the manuscript to be published!
