Next Article in Journal
A Study of the Mixing Process Under Vertical Vibration with Different Initial Structures
Next Article in Special Issue
Abatement of Electrochemical Desalination for Resource Utilization of Phenolic Residues
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Functional Jelly Gums Using Blueberry Concentrate and Honey: Physicochemical and Sensory Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chemical Delamination Applicable to a Low-Energy Recycling Process of Photovoltaic Modules
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Electrogenic Bacteria Enhance the Structure and Performance of Nitrite-Reducing Electroactive Biofilms

Processes 2025, 13(2), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13020509
by Zhufan Lin, Xinyuan He, Huahua Li, Yi Lu and Shaoan Cheng *
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Processes 2025, 13(2), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13020509
Submission received: 9 December 2024 / Revised: 26 January 2025 / Accepted: 5 February 2025 / Published: 12 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State of the Art of Waste Utilization and Resource Recovery)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:
line 30: Please clarify the difference between EAB and electrogenic bacteria

line 47: is there any reference proofing that the attachement on cathodes is impactes due to the negative charge?

Results & discussion:

line 216: in relation to what is the electroactivity relatively high? Please give some reference

Line 223: In my eyes the figure does not show a visible plateau phase for the -0.4 V bioelectrode

Line 262-264: this sentence is not clear - could you please elaborate

Line 279: as the protein content increases more than the removal rate - is there less removal per cell? please comment on that effect

Line 295-300: an explaning scheme/figure would help the understanding of the concept a lot.

line 326: is the difference between the 1500 mg and 500 mg biocathode significant?

line 355: It seems bold to conclude from the cell form to the function. FISH analyses would support the assumption.

Line 385: could you give the percentage of the change in biofilm thickness?

Figure 7: please provide a legend clarifying which part of the figure belongs to what axis

line 465-467: was there any positive control performed for strengthening this hypothesis? the decrease in Pseudomonas could also be due to handling

Figure 8: please add the characteristic conditions of the MECs somewhere. Otherwise its quite hard to correlate

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop