Fate and Transport of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Discharge Sites: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached my review report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. For our responses to your individual comments please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is well structured and data adequate. But I consider a grammar and spell check is needed. The authors put in real context the data, but I think is too much prose and results difficult and not easy to read. I suggest authors to elaborate tables of data levels from the studies of the literature nor elaborate figures of their own according to compilated data. Figure one lacks letters (c) and (d) on it and are on the figure caption.

Authors did not previously define PFOA and PFOS mean. The number of literatures in the review is really good and enough.

The review paper has been well structured and well written, only minor spell checks and grammar are needed. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. For our responses to your individual comments please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest the following changes and improvements:

1.     A conclusive critical view should be included in the abstract.

2.     The current structure of the introduction is not well organized and long. The authors need to be improved. Additionally, the last part needs to be revised considering the main theme/objectives and findings of the review.

3.     The novelty of this work should be stated clearly in the introduction section.

4.     What are the current research gap and research significance of this work?

5.     The authors need to provide detailed research direction advising young researchers, especially Ph.D. students who would be reading with interest to learn more about this research topic.

 

6.     A brief table should be added to each section summarizing the key results.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. For our responses to your individual comments please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This review focuses on the role of adsorbent, adsorbate, and aqueous solution in the fate and transport of PFAS chemicals. Additionally, other hydrogeological, geochemical, ecological factors such as accumulation at air-water interfaces, subsurface heterogeneity, polyfluorinated PFAS degradation pathways, and plant interactions are discussed. This review also examines several case studies at AFFF discharge sites in order to examine if findings are consistent with the broader PFAS literature. It provides valuable insights into understanding PFAS fate and transport at AFFF discharge sites. My overall opinion is that this paper could be better if appropriate modifications are implemented.

1. In introduction, authors do not point out the shortcomings of previous studies, and it is suggested to supplement the shortcomings of previous research methods.

2. Please increase the resolution of some pictures, such as Figure 4.

3. The Figure 1 can be slightly optimized to make it look more professional.

4. Please unify the paragraph structure of the article, for example, the formula in 2.2.1 has indentation, while others do not.

5. Some sentences are quite long and lack proper construction and punctuation marks. It will be good to do a thorough proof-reading of the manuscript again and take care of the English language.

6. The references should be expanded. Some new literatures might be help the authors to further deepen the understanding of reaction mechanism as well as newest developing in this field (Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 326: 116790   Regeneration mechanism of a novel high-performance biochar mercury adsorbent directionally modified by multimetal multilayer loading).

None.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. For our responses to your individual comments please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The subject of research is practical and useful. Investigating the pollution leakage plume is usually essential and vital in protecting the environment and against water and aquifers pollutions using subsurface studies.
The following items in this research need to be reviewed:
1- The word "FATE" in the title conveys the same concept as "TRASPORT" and there is no need to use both.
2- It is not necessary to use abbreviations in the title (esp. PFAS and AFFF).
3- The number of articles/references used in the research is very high (149 references), it is better to modify the "literature review" section of the research to be a little more balanced and complete.
4- It is necessary to address the limitations of the research as well as the comparison with the results of other similar research in the "discussion section", as it lacks it.

Check the text again.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. For our responses to your individual comments please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

All items are considered and can be accepted.

they are not existing comments.