Combination of a Highly Efficient Biological System and Visible-Light Photocatalysis Pretreatment System for the Removal of Phthalate Esters from Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, Chang and his/her colleagues reported a visible-light photocatalysis system was coupled with a biological treatment system for the continuous removal of phthalate esters (PAEs) from synthetic wastewater. The coupled photobiological system achieved removal efficiencies of 99.6%, 30 99.9%, and 100% for DEHP, DBP, and DMP, respectively, during the continuous treatment. The results of this study indicate that the developed coupled system is an effective, energy-saving, and cost-efficient tool for treating wastewater containing PAEs. However,there are different concerns that make the paper not suitable in its current form for publication.

1.      Please add relevant proofs for determining the optimal operating temperature of PAE removal with a visible-light photoreactor.

2.      The chart format in the article is recommended to be normalized, and the legends should be as unified as possible.

3.      Please check the grammar mistakes and typos in the manuscript and polish the language so that the manuscript is more readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1- The text needs some grammatical and spelling corrections.

2- The authors should provide information about materials source and purity in the materials section.

3- More analysis (including IR, PXRD and SEM-EDX) should be reported and discussed in the manuscript for the synthesized photocatayst.

4- It is recommended to study the effect of an electron scavenger such as hydrogen peroxide on the removal efficiency.

5- Radical scavenging experiments could be performed to explore the reactive oxygen species in the AOP and study the mechanism of photocatalytic degradation.

6- The adsorption of pollutants on the catalyst surface could be inspect.

7- Checking the removal in a solution with the concurrent presence of each of the three pollutants is propose.

8- The reusability and stability of the photocatayst should be investigate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work evaluated the efficiency of a visible-light-driven photocatalytic degradation system in removing PAEs from wastewater and the biodegradability of the treated olutions and effluents under a short retention time. This paper is well written and adds essential knowledge in environmental science.

1.     How does this work compare with the existing industrial treatment methods? Please introduce it in terms of cost, efficiency and side pollution.

2.     Affiliation: Taiwan is a part of China, and the reviewer suggest that the authors should add China after Taiwan.

3.     Authors should describe the types of pollutants (heavy metals, organic pollutants) found in the environment in the introduction. Several relative papers are suggested to be cited. (10.1016/j.clay.2018.12.017, 10.1021/acsami.1c22035).

4.     It is suggested that the author briefly explain what enlightenment this work has for other researchers.

5.     The language needs to be further improved.

6.     The resolution of all pictures should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper investigates combination of a highly efficient biological treatment system and visible-light-driven photocatalysis pretreatment system for the continuous removal of phthalate ester from wastewater.

-        The title is too long. It should be reduced.

-        The analytical method for phthalates is not described suitably.

-        What about phthalates in the environment/ your laboratory? In my case, we had a lot of contamination when we experiment with phthalates.

-        How did you overcome that problems?

-        Is plastic Rashig rings suitable due to discharge of this contaminants in water?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest that the manuscript can be accepted in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

 Accept in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept