UV/Advanced Oxidation Process for Removing Humic Acid from Natural Water: Comparison of Different Methods and Effect of External Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented manuscript includes a study of the UV/Advanced Oxidation Process for Removing Humic Acid from Natural Water: Comparison of Different Methods and Effect of External Factors.
The paper is of interest. The paper should be revised in terms of clarity of presentation. It isn't easy to follow the methodology procedure and Results section.
1. section 2.1.2. Lamp characteristics and irradiation spectra should be presented.
2. How many experiments were done in parallel? Please add SD ranges everywhere where applicable.
3. The unit “UV radiation intensity mW/cm2” for the immersed lamp is not clear.
4. Equation 8 belongs to the methodology section.
5. Obtained results should be compared with published analogs throughout the whole text.
6. Most of the references are too old. Please provide up-to-date relevant references for the 2022–2024 years to prove the novelty and actuality of the work
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper examines the effect of different parameters on the degradation and removal of humic acid by UV/AOP. The comparison of oxidizing agents is significant. The paper is well-structured and easy to understand.
Overall, more informative material needs to be provided in figure captions. The authors should describe the experimental conditions, etc., so the reader can understand them without looking at the text.
(1) Fig. 2: The caption needs to be more complex. Please write (A) on the left side and (B) on the right side in the figure and specify in the caption that (B) is a UV lamp.
(2) It's important to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research methodology. This includes indicating the number of experiments conducted (n) and describing the statistical treatment method used. By doing so, the authors can ensure that the research is reproducible, and the results are reliable.
(3) Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 8 should be marked with error bars. The graph's vertical axis is 'Removal rate' and' degradation rate' in the text. Also, there is no definition of 'Removal rate' in M&M. Please unify them.
(4) Fig. 10: There are two vertical axes. The caption does not clearly state which axis the line and bar graphs look at; please add an explanation in the caption.
(5) Figs. 9, 10, 12: The experimental time is 180-240 min. Naturally, the reaction progresses over time. Line 517 states that a reaction time of 180 min is optimal, but considering the actual process, is a treatment time of 180 min reasonable? Please add a discussion by indicating the percentage of removal required in an actual process and at what treatment time.
(6) Fig. 14: Please add in Caption that PMS was used as an oxidant, although it is mentioned in the text. Alternatively, change the horizontal axis to PMS concertation.
(7) Fig. 15: The units for substance concentration on the graph's horizontal axis are mM/L. The text, Line 488-499, is given in mg/L. Which is correct? If the molecular weight of the fulvic acid used was determined, please specify in the M&M.
(8) Does chlorination produce the amount of TMH reduced in the treated water after the decomposition of organic matter by this UV/AOP process?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable advice, and we have responded to your comments in "Response to Reviewer 2".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall comments were addressed
