Unveiling Synergistic Effects for the Optimizing Photoelectro-Fenton Process for Enhanced Terbutryn Herbicide Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is good but requires some major changes,

1. More comparison is required with other studies

2. how the study will contribute in sustainable development goals and society as a final outcome

3. all the equations are out of line, plz check whether are mentioned clear or just a typographical mistake

4. overall the result is unclear just the data and garphs were described but it requires more understading with statistical approach ( Just a suggestion)

5. how the P Value in table 9 could be zero

6. conclusion is needed a major revision

7. how the outcome will be utilized for the field

Comments on the Quality of English Language

need moderate changes

Author Response

Answers in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comparative study of three electrified technologies for the treatment of a model organic pollutant. Key experimental parameters, such as current density and catalyst concentration were investigated and by-products formed during the treatment process were identified. In addition, the authors propose a degradation pathway for the target pollutant. Overall, the study is interesting and has potential for publication in Water, provided the authors address the following points:

1- It is unclear whether all experiments were conducted using drinking water. 

2- Table 6 is overly detailed and difficult to interpret. There is too much information in its current format. Please summarize the data more effectively, focusing on the most relevant findings to enhance clarity and readability.

3- Figure 4 presents overlapping data.

4- In the energy consumption analysis, only the electrical potential of the power supply was considered. However, in the case of the photoelectro-Fenton (PEF) process, the energy consumption of the lamp must also be accounted for. If this has already been done, the authors should clarify this. Otherwise, incorporating the lamp consumption is likely to show that PEF is the most energy-intensive process, rather than the least expensive as currently stated.

5- Figure 10 shows that there is minimal difference between the COD removal efficiencies of the EF and PEF processes. The authors should provide a more in-depth explanation for this observation, especially considering the role of light in the PEF process.

6- Strengthen the novelty of the manuscript by incorporating relevant studies on electrochemical technologies. The following references could be valuable additions: 10.1016/j.seppur.2024.127295, 10.1016/j.eti.2024.103563, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140079, 10.1021/acsami.1c22362.

Author Response

Answers in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the manuscript to be published after major revision. The research work is interesting. However, some comments must taken in consideration before publication.

1-The novelty of work must be illustrated at the end of the introduction section to give solid proof on the importance of this research work

2- A comparative study for difference methods recorded for removal of this organic pollutant can be illustrated in Table in more reference than the already existed table which contain only three references

3-Are the author examine Zero order before first order kinetic equation

4-In Figure 13, how the authors detect the intermediate compounds [What is technique]

5-More information is required on the toxicity of the organic pollutant

6-The detailed of Measurement of COD is required in the revised manuscript

7-The references can be updated in the revised manuscript

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good represented

Author Response

Answers in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all concerns raised in the initial version, and the manuscript is now ready for acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the revised form for publication