Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Cintia Karina Rojas Mayorga 1,
  • Alejandra Noemi Pérez Jasso 2 and
  • Ismael Alejandro Aguayo Villarreal 2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author


For the review manuscript titled " Structure, Function, and Application of MOFs: A Comprehensive Review from Synthesis to Gas/Liquid Phase Adsorption", the authors summarized the whole picture of the potential MOF candidates from structural designing, synthesis, instrumental characterizations and evaluating the adsorption/separation properties from gas phase and liquid phase for environmental remediation. The author no only summarized the current standings, performance and mechanism of those MOFs, but also pointed out the challenges in those areas. The table are organized in good way, the author can compare the data straight forward. This manuscript meets the standard of this journal and can be accepted in present form  for publication in Processes.

This manuscript fill the gap that there's only a few publications that covers the both gas phase and liquid phase environmental remediation from MOF/MOF composite candidates. Moreover, the author accurately cited the most recent published papers with high impact, which also help the readers to collect crucial information from the field. Both the table and the figure the author made are clear and straightforward, which the reader can easily pull the necessary information from them.

Author Response

Comments 1: For the review manuscript titled " Structure, Function, and Application of MOFs: A Comprehensive Review from Synthesis to Gas/Liquid Phase Adsorption", the authors summarized the whole picture of the potential MOF candidates from structural designing, synthesis, instrumental characterizations and evaluating the adsorption/separation properties from gas phase and liquid phase for environmental remediation. The author no only summarized the current standings, performance and mechanism of those MOFs, but also pointed out the challenges in those areas. The table are organized in good way, the author can compare the data straight forward. This manuscript meets the standard of this journal and can be accepted in present form  for publication in Processes.

This manuscript fill the gap that there's only a few publications that covers the both gas phase and liquid phase environmental remediation from MOF/MOF composite candidates. Moreover, the author accurately cited the most recent published papers with high impact, which also help the readers to collect crucial information from the field. Both the table and the figure the author made are clear and straightforward, which the reader can easily pull the necessary information from them.

Response: We sincerely thank you for your thorough evaluation and very positive feedback on our manuscript entitled “Structure, Function, and Application of MOFs: A Comprehensive Review from Synthesis to Gas/Liquid Phase Adsorption.”

We greatly appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s scope, organization, and clarity, particularly regarding the comparative tables, figures, and the integration of both gas- and liquid-phase environmental remediation. Your acknowledgment that the work fills an existing gap in the literature and meets the journal’s standards is truly encouraging.

Thank you again for your valuable time and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting review paper that provides an in-depth survey of Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) and their role in environmental remediation. However, the following points need to be improved before publication.

  1. Citation format needs to be corrected to match with MDPI guidelines.
  2. Page 22 line 787, “REF” missing a reference citation.
  3. In section 7.5, the author briefly mentioned multiple adsorption cycles, may the author discuss more about the re-use of MOF as adsorbent, methods and mechanisms. This is highly related to stability and cost effectiveness.
  4. Section 7.2, “Stability in real conditions” is one of the major challenges. The manuscript would be strengthened by including supporting stability data.

Author Response

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. The citation format has been corrected as requested.

Comments 2: Page 22 line 787, “REF” missing a reference citation.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. The reference has been added to the manuscript.

Comments 3: In section 7.5, the author briefly mentioned multiple adsorption cycles, may the author discuss more about the re-use of MOF as adsorbent, methods and mechanisms. This is highly related to stability and cost effectiveness.

Response 3: Thank you for the observation. In Section 7.2, information regarding regeneration methodologies and MOF reusability cycles has recently been added; consequently, these aspects are no discussed in depth in Section 7.5.

Comments 4: Section 7.2, “Stability in real conditions” is one of the major challenges. The manuscript would be strengthened by including supporting stability data.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. Section 7.2 has been revised to integrate information regarding MOF stability, regeneration, and reusability. Furthermore, relevant references on adsorption-desorption cycles have been included. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review systematically summarizes the application of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) in the field of environmental adsorption. The content is broad in coverage, clearly structured, well-referenced, and holds significant reference value.

This is a very good review paper, it fits the scope of journal Processes, and this paper is suitable for publication in this journal.

The comments are as follows:

  1. The authors provide a relatively comprehensive overview of MOF structural design, synthesis methods, functionalization strategies, and their adsorption applications for both gaseous and liquid pollutants.
  2. For some parts for example in abstract, bibliographic survey was mentioned. However, this is not a bibliographic study, those description can be deleted.
  3. Section 1 can be shortened, a general introduce of the studied topics can be presented. The details can be described in follow sections. This is a very long review article. For better readability, a brief description on the structure and organization of the manuscript can be described at the end of section 1.
  4. For both the content and the structure, a Review paper on MOFs and applications inCatalysts in Electrochemical Water Splitting is recommended:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.04.241

  1. In this paper, figures need to be cited if they are copied from references.
  2. For the adsorption of various gaseous and liquid pollutants by MOFs, differences may exist in reaction conditions, adsorption mechanisms, and adsorption kinetics. It is suggested that the authors add explanations or summaries in the tables to clarify these aspects.
  3. It is recommended to compare the adsorption performance of MOFs with that of some common porous materials to highlight their advantages in performance or cost.
  4. The desorption and regeneration process after adsorption is equally important. The authors are advised to include some discussion on the cyclic stability of MOF materials.
  5. Citation format need to be revised, citation of reference numbers should be revised. For example A and B[1]. This reference list is based on the alphabetic of authors’
  6. The sizes of the figures should be unified.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors provide a relatively comprehensive overview of MOF structural design, synthesis methods, functionalization strategies, and their adsorption applications for both gaseous and liquid pollutants.

Response 1: Thank you for the observation. We appreciate your valuable feedback.

Comments 2: For some parts for example in abstract, bibliographic survey was mentioned. However, this is not a bibliographic study, those description can be deleted.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. The description “bibliographic survey” has been removed from the from the abstract.

Comments 3: Section 1 can be shortened, a general introduce of the studied topics can be presented. The details can be described in follow sections. This is a very long review article. For better readability, a brief description on the structure and organization of the manuscript can be described at the end of section 1.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. Section 1 was restructured and reduced. In addition, the final paragraph now provides a description of the overall content organization of the document.

Comments 4: For both the content and the structure, a Review paper on MOFs and applications in Catalysts in Electrochemical Water Splitting is recommended:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.04.241

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. The suggested reference has been added in section 2.

Comments 5: In this paper, figures need to be cited if they are copied from references.

Response 5: Thank you for the observation. No citations were added to the figures because they were created by the authors.

Comments 6: For the adsorption of various gaseous and liquid pollutants by MOFs, differences may exist in reaction conditions, adsorption mechanisms, and adsorption kinetics. It is suggested that the authors add explanations or summaries in the tables to clarify these aspects.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment regarding the differences in adsorption conditions, mechanisms, and kinetics for gaseous and liquid contaminants adsorbed by MOFs. We fully acknowledge that adsorption mechanisms and kinetic behaviors may vary significantly depending on the nature of the contaminant, the phase involved, and the physicochemical properties of the MOF.

However, the primary objective of this review is to provide a comparative and application-oriented overview highlighting the effectiveness of MOFs as versatile adsorbents for a wide range of contaminants, rather than to offer a detailed mechanistic or kinetic analysis of the adsorption processes themselves. A comprehensive discussion of adsorption mechanisms, kinetic models, and reaction conditions for each contaminant–MOF system would considerably expand the scope and length of the manuscript and detract from its main focus.

To maintain clarity and readability, we have therefore opted not to include extensive mechanistic or kinetic summaries within the tables. Nevertheless, where relevant, we have ensured that key experimental conditions and general adsorption trends are clearly reported and appropriately referenced, allowing interested readers to consult the original studies for detailed mechanistic and kinetic information.

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestion, which underscores the complexity of adsorption phenomena in MOFs and highlights important aspects for future, more specialized reviews.

Comments 7: It is recommended to compare the adsorption performance of MOFs with that of some common porous materials to highlight their advantages in performance or cost.

Response 7: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion regarding the comparison of MOFs with conventional porous materials such as activated carbons, mesoporous silicas, and zeolites in order to highlight their performance–cost advantages.

We fully agree that benchmarking MOFs against well-established porous materials is important for evaluating their practical relevance. However, a rigorous and meaningful comparison is inherently challenging due to the significant variability in synthesis routes, surface areas, pore size distributions, functionalization strategies, testing conditions, and cost estimation methodologies reported across different studies. Direct performance–cost comparisons often require standardized experimental conditions and techno-economic analyses, which are beyond the scope of the present review.

The main objective of this work is to provide a comprehensive overview of MOFs as adsorbent materials for emerging contaminants, emphasizing their tunability, structural diversity, and adsorption performance. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that MOFs present certain limitations, including potential stability and cost concerns. For this reason, the manuscript discusses the development of MOF-based hybrid and composite materials, which aim to overcome intrinsic drawbacks of pristine MOFs, such as mechanical fragility or limited hydrothermal stability, while improving scalability and practical applicability.

To address the reviewer’s concern, we have incorporated a brief discussion in the revised manuscript acknowledging the role of conventional porous materials as industrial benchmarks and highlighting the specific advantages and challenges of MOFs in comparison, without expanding the manuscript beyond its intended focus.

We appreciate this constructive comment, which helps place the discussion of MOFs within a broader materials context.

Comments 8: The desorption and regeneration process after adsorption is equally important. The authors are advised to include some discussion on the cyclic stability of MOF materials.

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the importance of desorption, regeneration, and cyclic stability of MOFs after adsorption processes. We fully agree that regeneration performance and structural stability over multiple adsorption–desorption cycles are critical parameters when evaluating the practical applicability of MOFs for the removal of VOCs, pharmaceuticals, and dyes in both liquid and gas phases.

However, a comprehensive discussion of cyclic stability would require a detailed analysis of regeneration strategies (thermal treatment, solvent washing, vacuum regeneration, microwave-assisted methods, etc.), framework robustness under different chemical environments, metal–ligand bond stability, hydrothermal resistance, and long-term structural integrity. Given the breadth and depth of this topic, incorporating a thorough treatment would substantially increase the length of the manuscript and shift the focus away from the primary objective of this review, which is to compare adsorption performance across different classes of contaminants.

Moreover, cyclic stability and regeneration of MOFs constitute a highly relevant and rapidly evolving research area that, in our opinion, warrants a dedicated review article to properly address the mechanistic, structural, and operational aspects involved.

To maintain coherence and readability, and in consideration of the manuscript length, we have opted not to include an extensive new section on this topic. Nevertheless, we acknowledge its importance and have added a brief statement in the revised manuscript highlighting the need for systematic evaluation of regeneration and long-term stability in future studies.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion, which we believe will help guide future research directions in the field.

Comments 9: Citation format need to be revised, citation of reference numbers should be revised. For example A and B[1]. This reference list is based on the alphabetic of author’s.

Response 9: Thank you for the comment. The citation format has been corrected as requested.

Comments 10: The sizes of the figures should be unified.

Response 10: Thank you for the observation. The size of the figures was adjusted according to the format of the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf