Removal of P-Nitrophenol by Nano Zero Valent Iron-Cobalt and Activated Persulfate Supported onto Activated Carbon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of manuscript entitled "Removal of p-nitrophenol by activated carbon supported nano zero valent iron cobalt bimetallic activated persulfate" is now well structured and organized.

The Authors properly addressed the criticisms and flaws arisen in the previous revision process and their point-by-point response meet my comments.

In my opinion, the scientific quality of the manuscript has been now raised to an appropriate level for publication in Water Journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Thank you again

Reviewer 2 Report

The last version of the publication has been rejected. The current version varies only gradually from the last one. Therefore I reject it again.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. The paper has been moistened by professional moistening institutions. We revised some problems existing in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript proposed by Jiankun Zhang and colleques reports the removal of a highly toxic carcinogen of phenolic compounds by activated carbon supported nano zero valent iron cobalt bimetallic activated persulfate. This manuscript matched the scientific scope of Water journal and can be accepted with minor revisions. The suggestions are listed below:

1. The entire manuscript text should be revised. A series of typos are presented, such as:

            Line 9 -- Remove the point between ‘’ring stucture’’ and ‘’ It arises from very stable’’

Line 11 – Add space between ’’ iron-cobalt’’ and ‘’(Co-nZVI)’’

Line 12 – Add space between ‘’carbon’’ and ‘’(GAC)’’

Line 28 – Add space between ‘’Keywords:’’ and ‘’nZVI’’

Line 31 – Superscript ‘’21^st century’’

Line 59 – Please remove the point: ‘’nZVI is an iron particle with about 1-100nm diameter..’’

Line 87 – Remove the space between ‘’ethanol 3 times,’’ and   ‘’respectively’’

Line 119 and Line 120 -- A different font compared with the text of manuscript is used. Also, decrease the font size.

Line 162 – Add space between ‘’before activation’’ and ‘’(A)’’

Line 257 – Add space between ‘’CoFe₂O₄^[33]’’ and ‘’is generated’’ 

Line 362 – Replace ‘’;’’ with ‘’.’’ (…by sulfate radical; It can also…)

Line 378 – Remove the space between ‘’ grade PNP’’ and ‘’ in this experiment’’

2. Units are generally reported with a space between the number and the units except for X°C and X%. Therefore, please implement the following:

Line 15 -- Add space between ‘’0-3’’ and ‘’mmoL/L, ‘’0.5-2.5’’ and ‘’g/L’’

Line 16 -- Add space between ‘’5-25’’ and ‘’mg/L’’

Line 23 -- Add space between ‘’1.5’’ and ‘’g/l’’. Also, correct ‘’l’’ with ‘’L’’.

Line 39 – Add space between ‘’0.002’’ and ‘’mg/l’’. Also, correct ‘’l’’ with ‘’L’’

Line 59 – Add space between ‘’1-100’’ and ‘’nm diameter’’

Line 86 -- Add space between ‘’0.3’’ and ‘’mol/l NaBH₄’’. Also, correct ‘’l’’ with ‘’L’’

Line 194 – Add space between ‘’3405’’ and ‘’cm^-1’’

Line 200 -- Add space between ‘’1130’’ and ‘’cm^-1’’

Line 209 – Remove the point between ‘’0mmol/L’’ and ‘’when the concentration’’

Line 299 -- Add space between ‘’1’’ and ‘’mmol/L’’

Line 299 -- Add space between ‘’1.5’’ and ‘’g/L’’

Line 300 -- Add space between ‘’15’’ and ‘’mg/L’’

Line 336 – Add space between ‘’1636’’ and ‘’cm^-1’’

Line 356 -- Add space between ‘’112.15’’ and ‘’m/z’’

Line 391 -- Add space between ‘’1.5’’ and ‘’g/L’’

3. Decrease the font size for all equations
4. References section is written using a different font compared with the text of manuscript. Also, verify this section:

 I don't think the month of publication should be introduced.

The name of the journals is not mentioned

What does [J] means?

Please verify the Reference 6. Some information are missing, i.e: the authors, volume, pages:

‘’Boron, and nitrogen co-doped carbon dots as a multiplexing probe for sensing of p-nitrophenol, Fe (III), and temperature %J Nanotechnology[J], 2021’’

5. The authors should try to bring out what is the originality of the work done
6. Please specify the quantity of FeSO₄7H₂O in Section 2.1 (Line 82)
7. Section 2.3 – Please verify the paragraph from Lines 128-132
8. Section 3.1

-ESD spectrum must be replaced with EDS spectrum (Line 140). The same remark for Line 149.

-Delete the sentence: ’’ Fig.4 shows the ESD spectrum of Co-nZVI/GAC in different posi tions’’ (Line 149) because it is already mentioned at Line 140.

-Figure 3c – ‘’Nano-cobalt’’ text should be improved

-Line 161 – Please mention in the text that Fig.6 shows the XPS of Co-nZVI / GAC reaction spectrum before activation (A) and after activation (B)

-Line 180 – Remove ‘’;’’ from the end of the legend of Figure 6

-Table 1 – Please correct BET/ (m^{2 .} g^-1)

-Figure 7 – Add y-axis title

9. Section 3.2. Please revise the legend of the Figure 8
10. Section 3.2. Line 209 -- Correct ‘’when ‘’ with ‘’When’’
11. Section 3.5. Line 264 -- Remove the point after ‘’5. Effect of initial PNP concentration’’
12. Section 4

-Line 314 – Correct ‘’ It can be seen’’ with ‘’ it can be seen’’

-Figure 15 – Add y-axis title

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Your suggestion is very good. We have revised it according to your suggestion 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The MS characterizes the removal of p-nitrophenol by activated carbon supported nano zero valent iron cobalt bimetallic activated persulfate. p-nitrophenol is a highly toxic carcinogen which is widely used in medicine, agriculture, chemical industry and other fields. The main idea could be helpful in order to remove p-nitrophenol from the environment.

Unfortunately, the manuscript written in this form is not suitable for publication and needs to be corrected. In particular, authors must ensure that the paper is written in the spirit of the English language. Here are just a few examples for authors to pay attention to.

 

Line 9: remove the

 

Line 9 Due to the benzene ring structure. It arises from very stable chemical properties.

This two sentences must be rewritten.

 

Line 19: When the dosage of PS changed…changed as fall or growth or?

 

Line 23: 1.5g/l, please rewrite to 1.5g/L.

 

Line 32: PNP please write full name of compound.

 

Line 39: When the PNP concentration in drinking water reaches 0.002mg/l, it will harm the human body.

Rewrite: When PNP concentration in drinking water reaches 0.002 mg/L, it is harmful to human body.

 

Lines 42-46: According to the National Bureau of Statistics report, since 2007, 5432.25 tons of every 70 billion tons of industrial wastewater in China have been polluted by volatile phenolic compounds [13]. The world needs to remove 10 million tons of such sewage every year. Finding a safe, efficient, and stable PNP removal method is essential.

Rewrite: According to the report of the National Bureau of Statistics, 5432.25 tons of 70 billion tons of industrial wastewater in China has been polluted by volatile phenolic compounds since 2007 [13]. The world needs to eliminate 10 million tons of such wastewater every year. Finding a safe, efficient and stable method to remove PNP is crucial.

 

Line 47: to remove   Revise: for removing

 

Line 48: Compared with ·OH, persulfate's advanced oxidation process has a higher reduction voltage.

Rewrite: Compared to -OH, the advanced oxidation process of persulfate has a higher reduction voltage.

 

Line 51: When transition metal ions silver rewrite to: When transition metal ions such as silver

 

Line 52: exist in water rewrite to: are present in water

 

Line 53: nZVI   please write full name of compound.

 

Line 63: nZVI is easy to oxidize in air and corrode in solution, reducing its activity[20].

Rewrite: nZVI is easily oxidized in air and corrodes in solution, which reduces its activity [20].

 

Materials and methods must be written in appropriate English style. Please use ‘’shaken’’ instead of ‘’vibrated’’, and appropriate unit ‘’L’’ instead of ‘’l’’.

 

Fig. 3 consists of 4 segments, but there is no description in the text for each of the segments shown. The authors must identify in the text the parts that refer to which of the segments of Fig. 3, only then does the representation of a four-segment image make sense, as they did for Figure 6.

 

Line 210-212: When the concentration increased to 1mmol/L, the degradation rate increased to 99.99% after 48 hours. Because the higher the concentration of PS, the more reactive oxygen species produced per unit time, so the higher the degradation efficiency of the system.

Rewrite: When the concentration was increased to 1mmol/L, the rate of degradation increased to 99.99% after 48 hours. This is because the higher the concentration of PS, the more reactive oxygen species are produced per unit time and the higher the degradation efficiency of the system.

 

Line 214: respectively, relatively lower… rewrite to: respectively, which are relatively.

 

Fig. 10: As with Fig. 3, the authors avoid describing the different segments of Fig. 10 in the text and the figure captions. Repeat again, the text must include the description of the imaging segments, as the authors do for Fig. 6.

 

Fig. 11, the same problem as described above.

 

Fig. 16, the same problem.

 

The Results and Discussion section mainly presents the obtained results. There was no real discussion and comparison of the obtained results with the results from the available publications. A critical review of the obtained results and discussion is necessary.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Your suggestion is very good. We have revised it according to your suggestion 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors present a study on the degradation o para-nitrophenol using solid-state iron-cobalt catalysts via oxidation. The overall study is solid. There is a strong component of materials characterization followed on by catalytic activity. I have a few minor issues for revision.    

 

The experimental procedure does not explicitly define the experiments undertaken. Reagents, actual concentrations, how pH was controlled, and other important reproducibility details are needed.

 

There are some issue of presentation clarify. For example, the experimental section is written as directions, but they are descriptive o the actual procedure undertaken. There are other typos and clarity error in the text that I think need editing assistance to correct.

 

With respect to presentation, Figures 8-11 and Table 2 have text with poor legibility. Figure 13 needs error bars in the measurement data. The authors report extract data from measurements, like rate constants that have excessive significant figures and no errors. Figure 17 and 18 are difficult to read, and honestly, I am not even sure what is conveyed in Figure 18. I think the data presented do not get at the level of detail in a mechanism as noted in that figure. I would recommend a more simplified set of conclusions and move away from drawing a ‘mechanistic scheme” that is somewhat uninformative.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Your suggestion is very good. We have revised it according to your suggestion 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Having the paper rejected twice I find it really insisting to submit it a third time. There may be some improvements, but still the authors and the editors should accept my recommendation to reject the publication. You cannot submit again and again a manuscript which has been rejected.

Author Response

Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors obviously made an effort to improve their original version of the manuscript. I believe they are also satisfied with the new version of their work. The only thing that remains is to check for possible unnoticed errors, such as the spelling of abbreviations of international units, like per liter, etc.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Thank you again. We also revised the errors that may not have been noticed in the paper and marked them in red.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have made substantial changes with all comments in mind. This is a greatly improved manuscript and I support publication.  

Author Response

 Thank you very much for your review. Thank you again

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The submitted article “Removal of p-nitrophenol by activated carbon supported nano zero valent iron cobalt bimetallic activated persulfate” has novelty and the results are supporting the conclusion. The methods and results are both interesting. However, in few sections, the discussions are not sufficient and must improve.

The manuscript has poor English and many grammatical errors are found. The manuscript has to be carefully polished up in order to correct typos and clarify some expressions. Both proofreading and editing are required to improve the quality of writing.

The major revision of the manuscript is recommended.

Please check the comments in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your serious work and advice. Thank you. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an interesting article, but the English language must be improved.

line 10: "a bimetallic composite material of nano-iron and cobalt"

line 11: "by a liquid phase reduction method and acted..."

line 15: What do you mean by "different material system"?

line 17: "the metals iron and cobalt" or "the metallic iron and cobalt". "The maximum degradation rate"

line 18: "The degradation rate is lower for other PS dosages"

line 19: "and increases"

line 21: "catalyze" requires an object

I stop the grammar and orthography checks here. The entire manuscript must be checked by a native speaker. Capital letters occur in the middle of a sentence, articles are missing etc.

line 31: "pollution"

line 62: not clear

line 82: This is not a recipe! Use passive constructions, not imperative.

It does not make sense to further review the article, before it has undergone complete re-writing, therefore I must reject it.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your serious work and advice. Thank you. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript reports the synthesis Co-nZVI/GAC nano composite photocatalyst used for degradation of p-nitrophenol. The paper reports a complete characterization of the synthesized materials and an exhaustive study of degradation; therefore, the manuscript could be accepted for publication after a minor revision. The following suggestions are proposed:

 

Abstract

In the abstract session, the Authors use the acronym Co-nZVI/GAC to indicate the synthetized nano composite. However, its meaning should be clarified the first time it appears in the text.

 

Introduction:

The introduction session should be improved. Some points are listed below:

 

-In lines 52-53, nZVI is directly presented as a highly efficient catalyst. This nano zerovalent iron material should be better introduced. Iron is mainly present in water in two forms: ferrous iron and ferric iron. How Fe⁰ is formed? I suggest the Authors to improve this part which description is not very accurate.

 

- The toxicity or non-toxicity of Co-nZVI/GAC should be reported.

 

- The authors should highlight the added value of their catalysts and the novelty of their work.

 

 

Results:

- The catalysts used in this manuscript needs to be compared to other similar materials present in literature.

- The Tables in figures 10(b), 11(C) 12 (b) aren’t clear.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your serious work and advice. Thank you. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form.

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the publication. However, the language is still not good:

line 11/12: "it has a high chemical persistance" instead of "..arised from..."

Articles are missing, e.g. line 14, where it must be "by the liquid..."

Nouns are used instead of adverbs, e.g. in line 19, where it must be "metallic iron"

In chapter 2 the language is still not appropriate. A "Methods" section must not be written like a recipe (Take a certain amount...), but as a documentation (A certain amount (which one?) was taken...)

In Figure 5 it becomes clear that the ZVI is no ZVI, but magnetite. So the title of the publication is misleading. This is confirmed by Fig. 6.

Figures are in different size and visualization, e.g. in Fig. 10

In summary, the improvement of the re-submitted manuscript is too little to consider it for publication. Therefore, I repeat my recommendation to reject the publication.