Phosphate Removal Efficiency and Life Cycle Assessment of Different Anode Materials in Electrocoagulation Treatment of Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors provided a detailed investigation on the use of different metals as anode materials for phosphate removal in electrocoagulation treatment of wastewater as well as a thorough life cycle assessment of these treatment processes. It was found that the aluminum electrode system is suitable for phosphorus removal from wastewater. These results can have implications for the design and assessment of wastewater treatment materials and processes. Overall, this work has good novelty and the results were well presented. The manuscript is considered suitable for the journal Sustainability. However, some certain revision is needed to further improve the quality of this manuscript. Please address the below detailed comments.

1. Figure 8a-c, the scale bars should be provided for these SEM images. For the corresponding EDS spectra, the energy scale can be cut off at 10 keV to focus on the relevant region only.

2. Related works on wastewater treatment are recommended to be cited in Introduction (e.g., ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 1899).

3. The authors are suggested to justify why the specific three metal electrodes, Al, Fe, and Mg, were chosen in this study.

4. Figure 4d and Figure 7e, why was the unit of electricity consumption different? The form is per m while the latter is per m³.

 

5. Figure 7a and 7b, the insets were not clearly presented. The visibility of these figures should be improved.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable to us in improving the quality of our work. We have placed our response to you in an attachment for your easy viewing. To make it easier for you to track the changes, we have highlighted the revised sections in yellow. We sincerely appreciate your guidance and hope that the revised version meets your expectations. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable to us in improving the quality of our work. We have placed our response to you in an attachment for your easy viewing. To make it easier for you to track the changes, we have highlighted the revised sections in yellow. We sincerely appreciate your guidance and hope that the revised version meets your expectations. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is focusing on "Phosphate removal efficiency and life cycle assessment of dif-2 ferent anode materials in electrocoagulation treatment of 3 wastewater". The work is interesting, but the UN SDGs achieved need to be dicussed.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question is the efficiency and environmental impact of phosphate from wastewater using different anode materials in electrocoagulation technique.

 

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What

specific gap in the field does the paper address?

There are two parts which are considered as original including comparison of anode materials and life cycle assessment. The research evaluates the efficiency of various anode materials such as aluminum, iron, and magnesium electrode for removing phosphorus from wastewater through electrocoagulation. Additionally, the associated environmental impacts were investigated via life cycle assessment.

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published

material?

There are two parts which are considered as an addition to the subject area copared to previous published work including comparison of anode materials and life cycle assessment. The research evaluates the efficiency of various anode materials such as aluminum, iron, and magnesium electrode for removing phosphorus from wastewater through electrocoagulation. Additionally, the associated environmental impacts were investigated via life cycle assessment.

 

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the

methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The authors can use artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to predict and optimize the impact of operational parameters such as electrode distance, pH, and current density on the effectiveness of phosphorus removal. Additionally, the UN SDGs achieved should be discussed in this study.

 

5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the

evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions

posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.

The conclusion is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented throughout the study. The conclusion discussed the anode material that could achieve the highest phosphate removal. Furthermore, the influence of operational parameters such as electrode spacing, pH, and current density on phosphate removal efficiency was discussed. Additionally, the results of LCA were presented.

 

6. Are the references appropriate? Yes

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and

quality of the data. No comments

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is on average and suitable for publication

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable to us in improving the quality of our work. We have placed our response to you in an attachment for your easy viewing. To make it easier for you to track the changes, we have highlighted the revised sections in yellow. We sincerely appreciate your guidance and hope that the revised version meets your expectations. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx