Photocatalytic Bactericidal Performance of LaFeO3 under Solar Light: Kinetics, Spectroscopic and Mechanistic Evaluation
, Ceyda Senem Uyguner Demirel 1, Isabella Natali Sora 2,* and Miray Bekbolet 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The topic of your paper is interesting. Overall, the quality of this paper is adequate.
Please, you should use line numbering throughout your manuscripts.
A.- Abstract, title and references:
The aim is clear. The references are relevant, recent, and appropriate.
B.- Introduction:
The research question is clearly outlined.
C.- M&M:
The variables are defined and measured appropriately. Methods are valid and reliable.
D.- Results & Discussion:
Data in appropriate way. Figures and tables are ok. Conclusions are supported by results or/and references.
E.- Conclusions/ Implications:
Conclusions are supported by results and references.
It would be interesting some additional managerial implications in line with the findings of the study. Practical implications? Something to inspire future research or implications for practice.
From my point of view, this is a quite good manuscript.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work describes the research of E. Coli inactivation in water environments under simulated sunlight conditions in the presence of the LaFeO3 catalyst.
Research looks well planned and done. The presentation of the results does not raise any objections.
The language requires careful verification in terms of grammar and the vocabulary used.
In particular, the meaning of the abbreviations used should be explained: in Abstract SPCI is explained as simulated solar irradiation, however in the content of the article the abbreviation SPCI is "Solar Photocatalytic Inactivation"
The acronym ROS is used many times without explaining that they are Reactive Oxygen Species.
The abbreviation NOM, EPS and IC are not explained. EPS can be "exopolysaccharides" or "extracellular polymeric substances".
On page 12, the authors used the numbering of sub-items i, ii, iii. However, their interweaving into a paragraph of a pattern and, in addition, starting a new paragraph makes the logical structure difficult to grasp.
In many places the authors spell E. coli correctly in italics, however there are large parts of the text where E. coli is spelled without italics.
References are written with double numbering. In many places, an example designation of year, volume and pages is written, for example, as 2019, 45, 3, 1222-1228. What should be written as 2019, 45 (3), 1222-1228. References require careful checking.
1. [1] Authors: World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edition, incorporating the 1st addendum. Number of pages: 631 Publication date: 2017 ISBN: 978-92-4-154995-0.
Should be written as:
World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edition, incorporating the 1st addendum. Number of pages: 631 Publication date: 2017 ISBN: 978-92-4-154995-0
The authors are doing experiments in experimental vessels with mixing the solution. Did they check the effect of mixing intensity on reaction rate?
Have the authors checked whether the intensity of sunlight is the main factor controlling the rate of E. coli inactivation?
Notes on writing numbers. The authors use the FORTRAN notation R = 3.49 E+04, which can be written as R = 3.49∙104, which is a shorter and understandable notation
In Figure 4, the red line runs above the red dots. What does it mean?
Why was parabolas in Figure 6B used instead of connecting the points with straight lines? Is there a reaction model that results in a parabolic curve?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
