Study of Influence Factors in the Evaluation of the Performance of a Photocatalytic Fibre Reactor (TiO₂/SiO₂) for the Removal of Organic Pollutants from Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Study of influence factors in the evaluation of the performance of a photocatalytic fibre reactor (TiO₂/ SiO₂) for the removal of organic pollutants from water

Journal: Catalysts

In this work, the performance of a photocatalytic fibre reactor under UV irradiation for the removal of organic pollutants from synthetic waters was evaluated. The authors must discuss more about the novelty of this paper. Also, some revisions must be applied according to the following comments. So, I suggest this paper for publication after major revisions:

Decision: major revision

Suggested comments:

1. The author should check the format, typing error spelling, and grammar throughout the manuscript. What's more, language needs polishing.
2. Keywords (maximum of 6 keywords) should start with a capital letter.
3. The authors must state that what is the main novelty of the present study? According to the following references, this catalyst was reported by several papers before.

Adán, Cristina, et al. "Photochemical and photocatalytic degradation of salicylic acid with hydrogen peroxide over TiO₂/SiO₂ fibres." Applied Catalysis A: General 303.2 (2006): 199-206.

4. Liu, Yu, et al. "Simulated-sunlight-activated photocatalysis of Methylene Blue using cerium-doped SiO₂/TiO₂ nanostructured fibers." Journal of Environmental Sciences 24.10 (2012): 1867-1875.
5. Introduction, paragraph 3, line 2: instead of repeating Fe₂O₃ twice, Fe₃O₄ can be introduced as a suitable photocatalyst. The following references should be added.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.05.087

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129236

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.05.035

6. The authors must compare the obtained results in each parameter with some similar papers.
7. Figure 7: after 24h, new elements appeared in the EDX analysis. Please discuss the origin of these elements.
8. Figure 11 is not appropriate and must be changed with a well-designed one.
9. The durability and stability of the synthesized fibre must be evaluated during consecutive photocatalytic experiments.
10. The conclusion section needs to be modified and keep concise. Just the obtained results must be stated instead of writing general facts. Also, remove the Langmuir-Hinshelwood equation.
11. The characterization of the prepared fibre must be studied precisely by diverse analyses such as XRD, FTIR, etc. There isn't any acceptable evidence to prove the successful synthesis.
12. The company and country of purchase must be mentioned for all the characterization instruments and purchased materials.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Garcia-Roig reports a detailed study about the influence of several factors on the photocatalytic performances of a TiO2/SiO2 fibre reactor for water specimens containing organic pollutants. In the manuscript 4-chlorophenol was used as a model analyte and the authors adequately justified how pollutant concentration, temperature, pH, fibre condition can affect the photocatalytic properties of the reactor. The manuscript is clear and can represent a useful tool even it lacks a rationalization about the different photocatalytic kinetics observed for phenol, chlorophenol, pyrene and bis-phenol A. In fact, even though it can be supposed that different molecular sizes, electronic distribution and other chemical parameters influence the adsorption process on the catalyst, the authors neglect to discuss these points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the reviewed manuscript, the authors studied the effect of catalytic surface area, fiber state, temperature, and initial substrate concentration to evaluate the performance of a photocatalytic fiber reactor for the removal of organic pollutants from the water. The manuscript is documented with clarity and rich with experimental evidence to support the conclusion. I recommend considering for publication of the manuscript after addressing the following comments.

1. Full stops (.) need to be removed (line 4) at the end of the title.
2. The sentences from lines 48 to 50 need to be rewritten for proper clarity. I suggest to breakdown this sentence into small sentences for proper understanding.
3. Line 57 remove the “and” should be “And,”
4. In the reference section, the following common mistake needs to be corrected.
5. According to reference format for journal. The semicolon (;) needs to be used instead of a comma (,) to separate the two names of the authors. (This is the common mistake present all over the reference section).
6. The journal name should be in italic style (This is the common mistake present all over the reference section).
7. In some places author used "pp" before page numbers. That needs to be corrected (Reference: 2, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23),

The author should revise the entire reference section to correct the formatting mistakes. I recommend that following the reference formatting guideline for the author on the journal website will be helpful to remove the formatting error in the reference section. (Link- https://www.mdpi.com/journal/catalysts/instructions#preparation)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised version is acceptable