Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a Novel Hybrid Gas–Liquid Phase Discharge Reactor
, Hao Yuan 2, Jianping Liang 2, Xiongfeng Zhou 2, Pingji Ge 1,3, Yang Liu 1,2,3, Tian Gao 1,2,3, Kun Yang 1,3,* and Dezheng Yang 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors!
After reading the provided paper I can recommend it for publicagion after a minor revision. The topic of the research is relevant since the quality water purifucation from toxic and harmful substances and residues directly affect the health of the population.
Before publication the following issues should be adressed:
1. Please check the English. There are several major mistakes, thus a native speaker should look over the text.
For example: Introduction (1 sentences): In recent years, nanosecond pulsed discharge plasma (NPDP) technology has been proved to be an effective means to remove toxic and harmful substances in wastewater, such as ...
Should be changed to: In recent years, nanosecond pulsed discharge plasma (NPDP) technology has been proveN to be an effective WAY to remove toxic and harmful substances FROM wastewater, such as ...
Same paragraph: which makes it become the current research focus
Should be changed to: which makes it our current research focus
There are also mistakes further in the text.
2. The experimental research described was carried out in a 15 ml reactor, while the discharge power was 0,759 W. Please adress the possible ways of scaling of the technology and evalute the energyconsumption compared to other methods. This would also support your conclusions.
It would be worth to comment more on the energy yield, since the curve is decreasing with time, while the efficincy is rising. Scaling would affect the energy yield numbers.
3. You have found, that the treatment time required for the degradation efficiency close to 100% is about 10 minutes. How would that affect the scaling of the technology? What is the possible productivity of the method?
4. Conclusions: you mention the following: "The complete degradation of pyraclostrobin in water indicated that NPG-LD based low-temperature plasmas can be developed into a highly cost-effective and environmentally friendly remediation technology for pesticide-contaminated water systems." This conclusion is not supported by concrete numbers (energy consumption, productivity, cost evaluation).
Author Response
Dear reviewers
We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a novel hybrid gas-liquid phase discharge reactor.” We have studied your comments carefully and made revisions marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached is the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. We want to express our great appreciation for your comments on our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviews for a manuscript entitled "Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a novel hybrid 2 gas-liquid phase discharge reactor". The paper is generally well-written and novel. It is addressing an issue of prime interest and emerging concern using emerging technology. Few areas of improvement before the paper could be published. Results on percentage removal and other mechanisms should be included in the abstract. The creditability of the results also needs to be emphasized in the manuscript. The authors should give clearance on potential by-products and their toxicity. Determination of toxicity and by-products need to be explicitly reported in the manuscript. Quality control and repeatability of the results also need to be emphasized in the manuscript. Equations need citations. Figure 2 - The authors should introduce the Figure and also cite the source of the image. Conclusions should comprise recommendations. A dedicated section for mechanisms could add more benefits to the readers. This is a very interesting study. Lastly, add error bars to Figure 4. Statistical significance and repeatability are very important.
Author Response
Dear reviewers
We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a novel hybrid gas-liquid phase discharge reactor.” We have studied your comments carefully and made revisions marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached is the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. We want to express our great appreciation for your comments on our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Send you the Review on the manuscript “Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a novel hybrid gas-liquid phase discharge reactor”.
Thank you for the interesting study and manuscript of the high quality.
The structure of the article is clear, contains all the necessary sections, is written in a good English, the figures are clear, the list of references contains 34 sources, including 32 from the last five years. As a comment, I note that there is no Discussion section, and the Conclusions section should be expanded. In its current form, this section poorly reflects the main conclusions that the authors made based on the results of the study. There are other technical comments listed below.
I recommend accepting the manuscript with major revision.
Technical comments:
1. L. 25. abbreviations should be deciphered in the abstract
2. There is redundant information in the Introduction section (L. 44-49). At the same time, there is little information about the examples of the use of the technology proposed by the authors for water purification from pesticides: specific mechanisms of reactions of destruction of pesticide molecules, side effects, environmental hazards of intermediates, possible economic effect
3. L. 78-79. Figure 1 does not indicate NPG-LD.
4. L. 84. Please, decipher the HV at the first mention.
5. L. 103. Please explain why the PYR degradation process followed pseudo-first-order kinetics.
6. L. 117. Why is acetonitrile used?
7. In section 2.2. it is necessary to specify by what method the PYR concentration was determined. Provide a description of the method, methodology and equipment used. In addition, it is not specified how the samples were prepared for experiments, the full chemical composition of the samples is not specified.
8. L. 125. Figure 2 shows 24 kv, the text above mentions 30 kv, in the conclusions and abstract - 30 sq. Please explain.
9. Fig. 4b. On the black chart, two out of six points are far behind the trend line. Such extrapolation is incorrect, in my opinion. It is necessary to double-check the data.
10. L. 176. Please give the reaction by which NO3 and NO2 are formed. In addition, the PYR formula should be given in the introduction.
11. Fig. 7. Please, explain, what do 0 min and 10 min mean?
12. Table 2. What does M+H mean?
13. Fig. 10. Please provide signatures along the abscissa axis.
14. L. 303. The text of the article does not provide estimates of the economic effect. This is mentioned in the conclusions. Please justify the conclusion that your proposed method can potentially be considered as highly cost effective. There is no assessment of the environmental hazard of the resulting intermediates in the text. Justify that your proposed method can be considered as environmentally friendly.
15. I recommend highlighting the Discussion section. This will greatly simplify the understanding of the material.
With kind regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewers
We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Degradation of Pyraclostrobin in Water Using a novel hybrid gas-liquid phase discharge reactor.” We have studied your comments carefully and made revisions marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached is the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. We want to express our great appreciation for your comments on our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you for your attentive attitude to my comments and suggestions for correction, careful work on correcting the text and figures, supplementing the manuscript with the necessary information. I believe that the revised version of the article can be accepted for publication.
