Enhanced Degradation of Bisphenol A via Ultrasound, Assisted by Chemical Treatment
, Florentina Laura Chiriac 2, Ioan Calinescu 1, Annette Madelene Dancila 1 and Mircea Stefan 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-2573935
Title: Study of Bisphenol A degradation using ultrasound and additional chemical compounds
Comments to the authors
The authors have evaluated the efficacy of ultrasounds technology in an air atmosphere for BPA degradation. The subject matter addressed in this study appears to pique the interest of the journal's readership. However, there are several aspects within this manuscript that lack clarity and demand further elucidation. Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript undergo major revisions before it can be considered for publication.
In preparing the revised version of this manuscript, kindly consider the subsequent points:
1) Please verify the correctness of the English in the title of the work. I believe a more suitable title for this article could be: Enhanced degradation of Bisphenol A via ultrasound-assisted chemical treatment.
2) The Abstract provided is highly descriptive. It is suggested that pertinent details regarding the study's main findings be incorporated here.
3) On line 229, replace "BPA efficiency degradation" with "BPA degradation efficiency".
4) Enhance the quality and sharpness of all figures presented.
5) Ensure that the Results and Discussions sections are consolidated into a single section.
6) It is advised that the conclusions be initiated by the following statement: "This study demonstrates the reliability of the ultrasonic method for the degradation of organic compounds..."
7) Incorporate a comparative analysis of the outcomes obtained in this study in relation to findings reported in prior research employing the ultrasounds technique and at least three other technologies used for environmental pollutant degradation, such as biological treatment, photocatalysis, and advanced oxidation.
8) Thoroughly review the reference style to prevent errors introduced automatically by the software.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Authors
The authors studied Bisphenol A degradation using ultrasound and 2 additional chemical compounds. The authors performed an excellent research study; however, there are some modifications that are required. The authors need to communicate the novelty of this study, especially in the abstract section. The abstract is unclear; the authors should refine it to relate it to the main idea. Another significant issue is the English language of the study, it is advisable for them to revise using a native language speaker or language editing service. Additional suggestions are as follows
In the title the authors misspelled the word “aditional” Kindly revise.
The abstract is too long, and the first 11 lines are very unnecessary, this introduction part should be summarized into a maximum of 3 lines. A maximum of 2 paragraphs is required.
The authors should give the meaning of LC-MS/MS in the abstract section at first mention.
This statement is inappropriate “Ultrasound (US) treatment of wastewater is considered an advanced oxidation process (AOP).” The advanced oxidation process involves the use of oxidants which can be persulfate, peroxymonosulfate, hydrogen peroxide, or other forms of oxidants, and ultrasound can be used to activate these oxidants which produce radicals, non-radicals effectively degrading the contaminants. Therefore, an ultrasound treatment process that does not involve the use of oxidants cannot be considered an oxidation process.
The competitive influence of other organic compounds such as CCL4 and ethyl anthraquinone (EAC) should be explored.
Which kind of water molecules decompose to produce highly reactive radicals? These radicals could naturally occur in water.
There should be a space between numbers and units for example “150V” should be “150 V”
The experiments illustrated in Figures 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 have no error bars which imply that the experiments were only carried out once. To give credibility to the work, authors should carry out these experiments thrice and the differences should be represented as error bars
No space between words. The sentence flow should be revised by a native language speaker or language editing service.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work in the manuscript “Study of Bisphenol A degradation using ultrasound and aditional chemical compounds” is good and I recommend this manuscript for publication after a major revision.
1. In the title spelling of “additional” need to correct.
2. Define the novelty of the work. Please specify your research nobility.
3. Originality and significance need to be clearly conveyed.
4. Abstract: Need to revise. It's too lengthy. In the abstract, add a description to clarify the flow of work. Authors are advised to revise the abstract and please focus the abstract on your research approach.
5. The introduction section should be organized to give a basic overview of the paper's topic, the extent and novelty of the current research approach, and how it might contribute to the existing literature. Also, the introduction section must incorporate more recent developments in this field.
6. Some keywords should be revised in the manuscript.
7. There are multiple grammatical errors in the manuscript. The manuscript could utilize some improvement in English by checking it with a native English speaker or software which provides their services for improving the quality of the manuscript.
8. The figure’s quality needs to improve.
9. Figure-1 is very general. Need to improve.
10. List of abbreviations that need to add.
11. The authors need to take notes in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high-impact journals to make the manuscript to a broad range of readers.
12. Conclusion is short. It should be more than a mere restating of results. The authors need to revise the conclusion section. It must clearly reflect the key conclusions and findings must be highlighted in points.
The work in the manuscript “Study of Bisphenol A degradation using ultrasound and aditional chemical compounds” is good and I recommend this manuscript for publication after a major revision.
1. In the title spelling of “additional” need to correct.
2. Define the novelty of the work. Please specify your research nobility.
3. Originality and significance need to be clearly conveyed.
4. Abstract: Need to revise. It's too lengthy. In the abstract, add a description to clarify the flow of work. Authors are advised to revise the abstract and please focus the abstract on your research approach.
5. The introduction section should be organized to give a basic overview of the paper's topic, the extent and novelty of the current research approach, and how it might contribute to the existing literature. Also, the introduction section must incorporate more recent developments in this field.
6. Some keywords should be revised in the manuscript.
7. There are multiple grammatical errors in the manuscript. The manuscript could utilize some improvement in English by checking it with a native English speaker or software which provides their services for improving the quality of the manuscript.
8. The figure’s quality needs to improve.
9. Figure-1 is very general. Need to improve.
10. List of abbreviations that need to add.
11. The authors need to take notes in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high-impact journals to make the manuscript to a broad range of readers.
12. Conclusion is short. It should be more than a mere restating of results. The authors need to revise the conclusion section. It must clearly reflect the key conclusions and findings must be highlighted in points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript focuses on investigating the efficiency of ultrasonics for the degradation of BPA under an air atmosphere. The study also examines the impact of frequency and additional compounds, including carbon tetrachloride, FeSO4, and ethyl anthraquinone. The manuscript could benefit from greater innovation, and there is a need for further clarification and confirmation of key discussions presented.
1. The abstract and introduction sections contain repetitive descriptions regarding the background of BPA. Please revise them to avoid redundancy.
2. The absence of product information in the study renders the proposed pathway for BPA insufficiently convincing. It is essential to conduct crucial measurements, such as liquid chromatography, to accurately identify and analyze the degradation products.
3. The manuscript contains several errors, including the inconsistent use of “SF” and “FS” as abbreviations of FeSO4. It is advised that the authors carefully review the manuscript to ensure accuracy in all key information presented.
4. The rationale behind using CCl4 to detect its influence on BPA degradation should be clarified. Additionally, it would be beneficial to explain why inorganic chloride salts were not selected to assess the impact of Cl- on the degradation process.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2573935-peer-review-v1
Title: Study of Bisphenol A degradation using ultrasound and additional chemical compounds
My impression is that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form. I provide comments and suggestions below for your reference. Major revision is required for this work.
Comments:
Despite the large number of authors of this work, every part of this work needs serious improvement. Please complete the descriptions given in the different sections. For example, the effects of operating parameters on the degradation process have not been well discussed. The reason for the decrease in removal efficiency at high concentrations, etc., is not explained.
There are many punctuation, spelling, typing, and grammatical errors in the whole manuscript and equations. Make sure the English of the manuscript is guaranteed to be free of language issues. For example, use a “×” sign instead of an “*” in equations, in line 230 change the “Frecvency” to “Frequency”, change “compund” to “compound”, superscript the radical sign (“•”), In Figure 3, put a “,” between 30 and 45 digits (30, 45), line 275 add the space and change “P=500” to “P = 500”, etc.
The Abstract and the Introduction sections are similar. It is better to revise.
The novelty of this study should be established in the manuscript.
The introduction section should include more references about the advanced oxidation process, particularly the ultrasonic process for environmental applications in light of the following works:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3151-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.06.003
In many recent studies, the application of the ultrasound process alone for the treatment, due to their high energy consumption, is not favorable instead, using of hybrid-advanced oxidation process, catalysts, and oxidants in AOPs for the treatment of pollutant are more favorable. However, the authors have mentioned the opposite of this issue in lines 62 and 63! Please explain this.
Please give a schematic for the structure or general molecular formula of “Schwertmannite (Sch)”.
It is good to design a better image for Figure 1 for more understanding and to make your work interesting.
Please add the results of the analyses to determine the optimal conditions in the text. For example, determining the optimum pH, temperature, and so on.
In your work, after the destruction process, toxic substances are produced that require further oxidation. In this case, how do you justify the environmental effects of your work?!
It did not predefine some of the abbreviated words that were used in the text and Figures. Ensure you predefined all abbreviated words before use.
The authors suggested the bold combination of the ultrasound process with the process to enhance its performance based on the following work: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112463
The quality and resolution of all Figures is poor. The authors need to guarantee high-resolution and scientific images to be used for publication.
The series in Figure 3 can be summarized by referring to the frequency used.
Figures 4, 7, and 10: First, How did the authors detect the generated intermediates? Second, they should provide related GS-MS/MS spectrum. Otherwise, it is not correct and scientific to use detected intermediates that belong to the other research. The authors should revise this section seriously.
Figure 11: “0 EAC ml” change to “EAC 0 ml”
Authors can compare this research with other studies in a table to highlight the advantages of their work.
Use the identical format for the references section.
There are many punctuation, spelling, typing, and grammatical errors in the whole manuscript and equations. Extensive editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-2573935R1
Title: Enhanced degradation of Bisphenol A via ultrasound assisted of chemical treatment
Comments to the authors
The authors have addressed the reviewer's feedback point by point, leading to satisfactory results. The revisions made have notably improved the scientific quality of the manuscript. Given the research's significance and the authors' substantial efforts, I recommend the editor's acceptance of the paper for publication. However, in the proof version before finalizing publication, I suggest refining the quality and clarity of figures 2, 11, 14, and 15 to match the standard set for the remaining figures.
Author Response
Thank you for the considerations you made.Reviewer 2 Report
Which kind of title is “Enhanced degradation of Bisphenol A via ultrasound assisted of chemical treatment” This clearly reveals the negligence of the authors in the English and grammar errors contained in the manuscript.
Clearly, the authors do not understand what the Advanced Oxidation Process Means. The reviewer disagrees with this. Why don’t the authors consider reading several published articles on the Advanced Oxidation Process and make a proper reference if there are any studies that erroneously refer to “only ultrasound treatment of water” without an oxidant as an AOP? Advanced oxidation process/ technology does not require ultrasound treatment, ultrasound can be introduced to facilitate any process. What is the Oxidant in this study? If the authors do not correct this, I would not recommend this article for publication in this journal.
Based on this I think this manuscript lacks sufficient clarity and understanding from the authors.
Moreover, it seems the authors don’t know how to place error bars in a figure.
The title is not apporpriate!
“Enhanced degradation of Bisphenol A via ultrasound assisted of chemical treatment” This clearly reveals the negligence of the authors in the English and grammar errors contained in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Recommendation: Accept
The authors have rightly attempted to address the comments from the reviewer. This paper will be helpful to readers and researchers working in this area. I recommend publishing the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you for the considerations you made.Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have effectively addressed the comments raised, resulting in improvements to the manuscript. Therefore, the paper has reached a level of quality that justifies its publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you for the considerations you made.Reviewer 5 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2573935R1
During the revision authors have tried to incorporate the minor suggestions in the revised version and that has improved the readability of the manuscript. Somewhere the authors have (conveniently) avoided the suggestions or dodged the suggestions saying for example, "The bibliographic references mentioned in the article are current (2023) and in accordance with the subject of the article. Those that we considered relevant were included in the bibliography. There are probably others, but without a major impact on the article" (which this reviewer doesn’t agree with).
- There are still formatting error in the text. For example, the authors are suggested to refer to page 5, L179: was set at 20C°; unify representation method for mL. Sometimes the authors used "ml" in the text.
- The authors stated that "The ultrasonic reactor was inserted into a cooling bath that maintains a relatively constant temperature around 40⁰C". Typically, such high temperature is not proper for elimination of pollutants by sonocatalysis process. Therefore, contribution of “heat activation mechanism” in sonocatalysis process should discuss.
- There are many references are not adjacent with this study. The authors need to take note in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high impact journal to make the manuscript in broad range readers as this reviewer is suggested in the first round of review.
- Most of the cited references are not proper. Probably, the references were selected by the student instead of researchers. Then it is like a learning report by a student.
- Some figures are recorded twice, like figure 1, 2, and 11.
- Some further clarification of the ultrasound conditions is needed. Was the ultrasound bath a single transducer? How was reproducibility ensured? How was the power/intensity measured (if it was) and how was it varied? Do the authors have any comments?
- The formation of hydroxyl radicals during the ultrasound process can be examined.
- Scientists were considered the removal technology based on the selectivity, sensitivity, cost effective and so on. The authors need to indicate such point in the revised manuscript.
- For LC-MS/MS and generated intermediates, the authors preferred to provide a long list of just copy and paste spectra and in most cases, the proposed and detected intermediates in the related figures were not in the spectra. Additionally, some of the SCAN chromatograms and tables included titles in another language. Even more, some chemical structures in the tables are not visible.
- Finally, the authors provided relative standard deviation (RSD) in their work. So, none of the figures have error bars or any indication as to the reproducibility of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Reject
(Line 54 -58) For any Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP), it is essential for there to be an Oxidant. An ultrasonic treatment without an oxidant doesn’t make it an Advanced Oxidation Process. The authors can refer to numerous articles on AOPs.
Giannakis et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 406 (2021) 127083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.127083
Ren et al Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 10, 6438–6447 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01161
Cheng et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 11584−11593 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03170)
Lin et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 12673−12683 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03916)
Zhou et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 12941−12950. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03595
Cheng et al. Water Research 157 (2019) 406-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.096
Wu et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 381 (2020) 121010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121010
Duan et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 8 (2020) 103849 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.103849
Chen et al. Chemical Engineering Journal 409 (2021) 128207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128207
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
1. During the revision authors have tried to incorporate the minor suggestions in the revised version and that has improved the readability of the manuscript. Somewhere the authors have (conveniently) avoided the suggestions or dodged the suggestions saying for example, "The bibliographic references mentioned in the article are current (2023) and in accordance with the subject of the article. Those that we considered relevant were included in the bibliography. There are probably others, but without a major impact on the article" (which this reviewer doesn’t agree with).
2. There are many references that are not adjacent to this study. The authors need to take note in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high-impact journals to make the manuscript a broad range of readers as this reviewer suggested in the first round of review as follows:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3151-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.06.003
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
