Biodegradation of Congo Red Using Co-Culture Anode Inoculum in a Microbial Fuel Cell
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research investigated the effective degradation of Congo red by bioremediating bacteria isolated from different environment. However, I still have some concerns listed below. The manuscript should be improved according to the comments before considering for publications.
1. Abstract, I suggest it is better to delete some description of dye introduction in the first sentences.
2. Line 65, “This study employed the natural approach as an alternative method.” What is the difference and advantage compared with the other biological method？What is the innovation?
3. Figure 1, congo red is a very common dye, I suggest the chemical structure could be deleted or listed with other figures.
4. Table 3 and 4, I suggest the data could be changed to a bar chart.
5. 2.4 Congo Red degradation by E. faecalis, “exclusively adsorbed on the surface of bacterial cells” How to degrade if there is no adsorption? Please provide some references or some experiments. Why was the dye decolorization the lowest at 10 mg/L?
6. 2.5 and 2.6, I suggest providing some references comparisons about the performance of MFC.
7. The language of this manuscript should be improved. Line 21, “differenet” should be changed to “different”. Line 248, ”recently“ should be changed to the other name. MFC abbreviation should be pointed at the first.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments to Author
This research investigated the effective degradation of Congo red by bioremediating bacteria isolated from different environments. However, I still have some concerns listed below. The manuscript should be improved according to the comments before considering for publication.
- Abstract, I suggest it is better to delete some description of dye introduction in the first sentences.
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we now have revised the abstract and deleted few unnecessary sentences (Lines 16-18). Changes are made can be seen in annotated version.
- Line 65, “This study employed the natural approach as an alternative method.” What is the difference and advantage compared with the other biological method？What is the innovation?
- Figure 1, Congo red is a very common dye, I suggest the chemical structure could be deleted or listed with other figures.
Response: Figure 1 chemical structure of Congo red dye is removed and the remaining ones are renumbered. Changes are made as per reviewer’s recommendation (page 2 and 3,line 58-237 in annotated version).
- Table 3 and 4, I suggest the data could be changed to a bar chart.
Response: As suggested by the reviewer Table 3 changed to a bar chart and renumbered accordingly (page 6 line 167). Changes are made as per reviewer’s recommendation (Page 9 lines 288-289 in annotated version).
Response: As suggested by the reviewer Table 4 changed to a bar chart and renumbered (page 7 line 192). Changes are made as per reviewer’s recommendation (Page 10 line 314-315 in annotated version).
- 2.4 Congo Red degradation by E. faecalis, “exclusively adsorbed on the surface of bacterial cells” How to degrade if there is no adsorption? Please provide some references or some experiments. Why was the dye decolorization the lowest at 10 mg/L?
- 2.5 and 2.6, I suggest providing some references comparisons about the performance of MFC.
- The language of this manuscript should be improved. Line 21, “different” should be changed to “different”. Line 248,” recently “should be changed to the other name. MFC abbreviation should be pointed at the first.
Response: As suggested by a reviewer “different” has been changed to “different” and MFC abbreviation has been pointed at the first (page 1 line 22 & line 23). Changes are made as per the reviewer’s recommendation (annotated version).
Response: “Recently” word has been changed to “Freshly” (page 14 line 409). Changes are made as per the reviewer’s recommendation (annotated version).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript is well written, However, minor modifications are required before acceptance:
Abstract: More results must be discussed in the abstract. currently, half of the abstract is based on background.
Introduction: It is too general, reported work must be compared with the latest literature and highlights the shortcomings of previous work and importance of their work.
Methodology: What do the authors mean by aseptic cow dung collection?? how they created a septic environment? Mention for making clarity.
Results: Line 222 resistance, and diffusion transfer resistance. The author should add the latest reference like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.173 to support their claim.
Authors must add a comparison table with reported work and compare their results to show the superiority of their work.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
- Manuscript is well written, however, minor modifications are required before acceptance
Response: We thank the reviewer for this encouraging comment. Abstract has been thoroughly revised.
- Abstract: More results must be discussed in the abstract. Currently, half of the abstract is based on background.
Response: As suggested by reviewer, more results has been discussed in the abstract (page 1 lines 28-31 in annotated version).
- Introduction: It is too general, reported work must be compared with the latest literature and highlights the shortcomings of previous work and importance of their work.
Response: Introduction has been thoroughly revised with new highlights (page 2-6 line 58-248 in annotated version).
- Methodology: What do the authors mean by aseptic cow dung collection?? How they created a septic environment? Mention for making clarity.
Response: Fresh cow dung was collected using sterile gloves, it was a source from which authors have isolated pure culture. We apologize for the terminology we now have corrected that ( Page 15, lines 426-427 in annotated version)
- Results: Line 222 resistance, and diffusion transfer resistance. The author should add the latest reference like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.173 to support their claim.
- Authors must add a comparison table with reported work and compare their results to show the superiority of their work.
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. The comparison on this work with available literature seems to be little irrelevant as the work presented here demonstrate the ability of co-culture bacteria under electrochemical condition.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The description of introduction is too much. The caption of Figure 2 should be listed after the figure. Figures 2 and 3 should be improved, eg. adding the error bar and ordinate; efficiency is calculated according to concentration.
Author Response
The description of introduction is too much. The caption of Figure 2 should be listed after the figure. Figures 2 and 3 should be improved, e.g., adding the error bar and ordinate; efficiency is calculated according to concentration.
Response: The description of introduction is reduced making it concise focused on existing biological technologies and their drawback.
The caption of Figure 2 is listed after the figure in the revised manuscript. Figures 2 and 3 is improved, e.g., the error bar and ordinate is included; efficiency is calculated according to concentration.
Figure 2, page 7, line number 203.
Figure 3, page 8, line number 231.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
