Next Article in Journal
Role of Post-Exposure Time in Co(II) Sorption of Higher Concentrations on Electron Irradiated Sheep Wool
Next Article in Special Issue
Removal of Reactive Dyes in Textile Effluents by Catalytic Ozonation Pursuing on-Site Effluent Recycling
Previous Article in Journal
Betulin Promotes Differentiation of Human Osteoblasts In Vitro and Exerts an Osteoinductive Effect on the hFOB 1.19 Cell Line Through Activation of JNK, ERK1/2, and mTOR Kinases
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ozone-Based Advanced Oxidation Processes for Primidone Removal in Water using Simulated Solar Radiation and TiO2 or WO3 as Photocatalyst
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Optimization of the Electro-Peroxone Process for Micropollutant Abatement Using Chemical Kinetic Approaches

Molecules 2019, 24(14), 2638; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24142638
by Huijiao Wang 1,2, Lu Su 3, Shuai Zhu 4, Wei Zhu 5, Xia Han 5, Yi Cheng 1, Gang Yu 2 and Yujue Wang 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Molecules 2019, 24(14), 2638; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24142638
Submission received: 2 June 2019 / Revised: 12 July 2019 / Accepted: 16 July 2019 / Published: 20 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Applications of Catalytic Ozonation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very well written and results are clearly presented. The experimental part is very well carried out. As a minor point I would like authors to perform some degradation test of the compounds which are rapidly (less than 10 seconds) by the e-peroxone process with a higher initial drug concentration in order to check the quality of the model with more experimental points. 

After this minor revision the paper can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,


Regarding the manuscript "Optimization of the electro-peroxone process for micropollutant abatement using chemical kinetic approaches" by Wang et al. I think it is a good paper and sounds really god for your readers.


Material and Methods generally appears before results. I saw you put M&M after results. Is it a journal guideline?


My suggestion is about statistics: Can you use R2 in nonlinear regressions? Even if possible, Adjusted R2 would be better, as your models have different variables.More variables are added, greater will be the R2. So, Adjusted R2 correct this issue.


Sincerely yours. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop