Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper Treatment technologies for the removal of Bisphenol A from 1 water: A comprehensive review is nicely written and compiled to form a review  on the topic, There are few language correction in abstract as passive writing is recommended

Summary on Table 2 needs correction as not clear

If microbial roles can be involved in biological ways it will be better

A graphical abstract can be included

 

 

Language and grammatical errors at many locations needs to be improved

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- Please mention the period of articles cited in this paper in the abstract.

- Please don't use pronouns in the text, such as we, our, etc.

- What do you mean by: "BPA has been classified as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC)"?

- You should mention the drawbacks of each method presented in this review.

- Explain the differences between "sieving mechanism" and "adsorption mechanism" based on membrane treatment.

- Based on your review, which membrane technology is more efficient for BPA removal under the same conditions?

- What are the conditions of the wide range of half-lives stated by the following statement: "the half-lives of BPA and BPS range from 3 to 35 minutes"?

- You stated that "Kinetic studies on BPA degradation by ferrate align well with a pseudo-second-order reaction law". Does that behavior always occur?

- What is the limit of H2O2 that you stated in the following statement: "Moreover, the introduction of high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide can contribute to the process of mineralization"?

- It is preferred to add the general chemical reactions that proceeded throughout each technology. Please revise. 

 - Line 455: "The rate constant of sulfate radicals to BPA was kSO4•- BPA = 1.37 ± 0.15 × 109 M-1 s-1." For which order is this rate constant? Please recheck the units.  

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Treatment technologies for the removal of Bisphenol A from water: A comprehensive review” submitted to “Water” represents the wastewater treatment methods used to remove Bisphenol A from water. The given methods are physicochemical, biological, and emergence of hybrid/integrated systems. Although the study objective is mentioned, some points should be considered before final acceptance:

1-  Dive deeper into the underlying mechanisms of Bisphenol A removal because this will add scientific rigor to the paper and help readers comprehend the principles governing the process.

2-  Extend the discussion to include potential future developments and emerging trends in the field of Bisphenol A wastewater treatment. Explore possibilities for improving the performance of the treatment processes, cost reduction strategies, and scalability considerations.

3-  Analyze the existing regulatory framework and policies related to Bisphenol A removal from wastewater. Evaluate how the implementation of Bisphenol A wastewater treatment aligns with environmental regulations and any potential policy recommendations to encourage its widespread adoption.

4-  Undertake a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the overall environmental impact of the Bisphenol A wastewater treatment process. Compare it with conventional treatment methods to understand its ecological footprint and potential contributions to sustainable Bisphenol A wastewater management

5-  Is not clear what is new in this review comparing with other similar reviews; what can be used by the scientist as advices for future work?

 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The review deals with the Treatment technologies for the removal of Bisphenol A from water. But publication point of view some modification is necessary.

1. The title of the review is not attractive and meaningful. So the author should change the title.

2. What is the novelty of this review article? Rewrite it at the end of the introduction section.

3. The author should include sonocatalytic treatment and plasma treatment processes for the removal of BPA.

4. Current challenges and future prospects should be written broadly.

5. Subscript throughout the manuscript should be checked.

6. To enrich literature add some literature 

 i. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 582, (2021), 1058-1066, ii. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 606, (2022), 454-463, iii. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 434, (2023), 114250

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear authors, there are a number of questions to the submitted manuscript:

1. Specify the chemical formula of biophenol and the main physical and chemical properties

2. References are required to documents that regulate the maximum allowable content of biophenol in a natural reservoir, drinking water, wastewater when discharged into a sewerage system / reservoir

3. What are the quantitative indicators of biophenol when discharged into a water body without treatment (global indicators / regionally)?

4. What is the decay time of biophenol in soil/water?

5. Is the presence of biophenol in the urine of 90% of patients typical for a certain region?

6. Are there studies on biophenol content in marine life outside of China? What are the limit values?

7. Have these sorption methods been tested on industrial wastewater?

8. How are sorption processing wastes, membrane technology permeate, excess activated sludge from biological treatment disposed of?

9. When removing biophenol by the sorption method, how do temperature, ph, processing time, initial concentration of biophenol affect?

10. What is the power and treatment time for UV irradiation. Do they vary with different combinations?

11. Are there any restrictions on the incoming concentrations of biophenol in biological treatment? Does the age of the sludge affect the removal efficiency?

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors responses are satisfactory

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 4 Report

Revision made by the author is satisfactory and the present form of the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

 Minor editing of English language required