Phenol Degradation Performance in Batch and Continuous Reactors with Immobilized Cells of Pseudomonas putida

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study seems to be a continuation of a previous study [Lin et Cheng, 2020], for which some improvements were included.  Having said that, in relation to the previous study, the main innovative factor is the inclusion of immobilized cells with nano-Fe3O4, leading to an improvement in the phenol kinetics degradation.

The introduction perfectly integrates the main aspects of the theme.

This article is well written, with a good organization of the contents. The whole experimental design was carefully elaborated and meticulously presented, integrating the main aspects of the set-up under study. The basic aspects of modeling were detailed and the equations of cell growth and phenol degradation were clearly defined.

About the presentation of the results, we found it suitable, clear and succinctly written assuring a proper interpretation and understanding, only some minor suggestions will be made in specific comments.

The manuscript is very nicely and succinctly discussed. The cited core references are appropriate to the discussion, although some seem to be old (>5 years). If possible, please include more recent ones.

Specific comments:

#1_ Please check the entire manuscript for consistency in the presentation of physical units (e.g. L193-194: ”… phenol concentration of 53‒117 mg/L. The value of μ obtained from each batch test was 0.044, 0.052, 0.057, 0.060, and 0.047 h^‒1, respectively….”).

#2_L172-177_Please detail the conditions in terms of the time of elution and gradients used.

#3_L 458-625_Figures 3-8 need to be checked, it seems that there has been some distortion. In addition, the physical units need to be presented uniformly.

#4_ Please check the scientific names of microorganisms in the References. Some of them are not in italic.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The following report is based on my review of the manuscript entitled “Phenol Degradation Performance in the Batch and Continuous Reactors with Immobilized Cells of Pseudomonas putida”, with manuscript number “processes-2223801”. The manuscript fits within the scope of “processes” and is also interesting. However, the following shortcomings have been pointed out and need to be addressed properly for further improvement of the manuscript. They are:

·       The abstract needs to be modified. Rewrite the abstract completely as there are many mix-ups. It should be more specific and informatively It should contain Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement Authors need to clearly state the motive for the research (i.e. problem statement).

·       There are so many abbreviations in the abstract. Kindly remove all of them from the abstract

·       Line 22-23: Kindly remove the abbreviation “HRTs”.

·       The paper needs more effort in displaying the methodology as the applied is not so innovative. It lacks information of different indices used in this research. This section should be re-organized, more specific and systematized with references to support it. Pay attention to the technical details required to describe the experimental procedures.

·       Discussion of results is weak. It is suggested to compare the results of the present study with some similar studies. More explanations and interpretations must be added for the results.

·       Most paragraphs in the entire manuscript are either too lengthy or too short, especially paragraph one of the introduction. Kindly consider at least 4 and at most 9 sentences in each paragraph. It is suggested to revise all through the manuscript.

·       The way figures and Tables are presented is not in format of the journal. Kindly refer to the journal template/author guidelines.

·       The references are not enough to justify the work done in the manuscript. Kindly update the reference list with most recent and relevant articles from reputable journals, preferably those published within 2016-2023.

The manuscript should be modified according to above said comments and be thoroughly reviewed again before accepting it for publication

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc