Doxycycline Removal by Solar Photo-Fenton on a Pilot-Scale Composite Parabolic Collector (CPC) Reactor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is about the experimental evaluation of degradation od doxycyline by solar photo fenton process using indegenously fabricated pilot scale helio-photochemicl reactor. The effect of various parameters on the process were studied. comments are as follows:

1.  No of citation should be reduced in introduction section. Now 37 refs were cited.

2. Table 1 should be cited.

3. Assumptions should be outlined.

4. regression parematers and mathematical expressions should be provided in results and discussion. 

5. Table 6 should be extended. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review of our paper, we have carefully reviewed the comments and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find hereafter the responses to the Reviewer’s comments point by point (in red). All the suggested additions and/or corrections have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the manuscript entitled “Doxycycline removal by solar photo Fenton on a pilot-scale composite parabolic collector (CPC) reactor” authored by Faiza Bensaibi et al. (processes-2504762).

The submitted manuscript deals with removal of doxycycline by the solar photo Fenton process. The paper presents a group of interesting tests in photo Fenton. This paper could be publishable, however the following comments and suggestions should be addressed in a revised manuscript before it can be reconsidered for publication.

(1) What is the benefit of these processes in comparison with other systems? The authors should put some effort in discussing in the introductory part other relevant studies performed with other types of systems in order to highlight the innovative aspects (e.g cost, efficiency) compared to other processes.

(2) The kinetics, should be compared with others reported in literature.

(3) Author should clarify why these experimental conditions were selected and if the selection was based on the real application, for example, the iron initial concentration.

(4) A more in-depth discussion of the results obtained is needed.

(5) Conclusions should present more clearly not only the new findings as done in the previous sections but rather focus on the new insight came out of this work.

 Other remarks:

(6) I recommend a full revision of the language in order to avoid further editorial work.

 This paper need a major revision and suggestions should be addressed in a revised manuscript before it can be reconsidered for publication.

 This paper need a major revision and suggestions should be addressed in a revised manuscript before it can be reconsidered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review of our paper, we have carefully reviewed the comments and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find hereafter the responses to the Reviewer’s comments point by point (in red). All the suggested additions and/or corrections have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors proposed an interesting topic for research, but a minor revision is required before the manuscript acceptance.

Questions and comments:

1.      Introduction: specify novelty of your work.

2.      Line 109: please correct the chemical formula (spaces are not recommended).

3.      Methods: Were replicates performed? What was the error/ standard deviation of the results.

4.      Line 184: wouldn't it be better to add more sub-points, i.e. 1.1.1 Effect of….. 1.1.2. Effect of…

5.      Line 185-188: please remove bold text (check full article).

6.      Line 201: error in the numbering of equations.

7.      Line 230: please remove the blue background of the equation and check the whole article.

8.      Fig. 4: please correct the caption and unify the figure captions throughout the article.

9.      Conclusions: please indicate the limitations of the proposed solution and the tests carried out.

10.  I noticed many editing errors (e.g. missing spaces). Please check the entire text carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review of our paper, we have carefully reviewed the comments and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find hereafter the responses to the Reviewer’s comments point by point (in red). All the suggested additions and/or corrections have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the suggested changes. The manuscript is now of the quality required for publication in Processes.