Comparative Study of Rhodamine B Treatment: Assessing of Efficiency Processes and Ecotoxicity of By-Products
, Alonso Reynoso de la Garza 1,2, Omar Fuerte 1,3, Adriana Benítez-Rico 2, Messika Revel 1, Tomás E. Chávez-Miyauchi 2 and Hayet Djelal 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have the following suggestions for further improvement of the manuscript and it can be published after addressing the following minor issues.
1. Please add more numerical results of the study in the abstract.
2. Authors have to mention the production company of all of the used materials and devices. (For all manufacturers, location information should be given consistently at the first instance only, and in a uniform manner - company name, city, and country).
3. Characterization section is missing.
4. How authors optimized the effective parameters of photodegradation?
5. Comment #1 should be considered for the Conclusion.
6. Preparation method of photocatalyst should be mentioned.
The text needs to be polished in terms of grammatical.
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.
- Please add more numerical results of the study in the abstract.
Response: The abstract was revised in the aim to show more better the objective of this study.
- Authors have to mention the production company of all of the used materials and devices. (For all manufacturers, location information should be given consistently at the first instance only, and in a uniform manner - company name, city, and country).
Response: Thank you for this recommendation and we have added the production company, city and country in the manuscript.
- Characterization section is missing.
Response: the reviewer is right, all characterization; Structural, morphological, and optical analysis, performed by XRD-Rietveld, SEM-EDX, and UV-Vis DRS techniques were discussed in our previous and submitted article of the first part of the study (revised version was submitted). The preprint of article is available on the link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997 or http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2139/ssrn.4428997.
- How authors optimized the effective parameters of photodegradation?
Response: for the effective parameters of photodegradation a response surface methodology (RSM) was developed for stablish optimal degradation parameters when varying relevant factors for water treatment of real effluents: pH, NaCl, and Cu concentrations. This study is available online as preprint (submitted revision of article for the journal): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997 or http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2139/ssrn.4428997.
- Comment #1 should be considered for the Conclusion.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We improve the conclusion in the manuscript.
- Preparation method of photocatalyst should be mentioned.
Response: in our previous article (revision submitted to a journal) which represent the first part of the study there is “Preparation and characterization of nanosized Cerium-doped Titania” section in which the synthesis was reported with detail: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997 or http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2139/ssrn.4428997.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Please modify the title and make it specific
Abstract: Please re write the abstract with respect to specific objectives, novelity and outcomes
Please make the introduction part objective oriented. Give draw backs and hazardous of Rhodamine pollutant in accordance with comparison to recent literature.
Table 2: Please prepare a new table for comparative analysis of rhodamine B degradation with respect to available literature.
Did the authors peform optical analysis/ UV absorption experiments for the dye? Or for the sake of comparison? I recommend to provide the UV results.
I would further recommend to provide SEM images of the samples.
Please double check spelling and grammar issues.
There are various typo and grammar errors that needs to be addressed
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.
Title: Please modify the title and make it specific
Response: The title was modified directly in the manuscript.
Abstract: Please re write the abstract with respect to specific objectives, novelity and outcomes
Response: Thank you for this recommendation and the abstract is improved in the manuscript
Please make the introduction part objective oriented. Give draw backs and hazardous of Rhodamine pollutant in accordance with comparison to recent literature.
Response: We carefully considered your proposition; however, in lines 41-47, we presented the hazards of Rhodamine B based on recent literature. Furthermore, we have worked to improve the manuscript for better comprehension.
Table 2: Please prepare a new table for comparative analysis of rhodamine B degradation with respect to available literature.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, the Table 3 in the manuscript compare the degradation of RhB’ results with scientific literature.
Did the authors peform optical analysis/ UV absorption experiments for the dye? Or for the sake of comparison? I recommend to provide the UV results.
Response: the photolysis of dye under UV irradiation was recorded in our first part of the study available for the moment as preprint (revised version of the article was submitted). The results shows that practically there is no a negligeable light absorption, and there is no photodegrading of dye molecules without presence of catalyst.
The preprint of this study is available in the link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997
I would further recommend to provide SEM images of the samples.
Response: authors thanks the reviewer for this comment, all characterization; Structural, morphological, and optical analysis, performed by XRD-Rietveld, SEM-EDX, and UV-Vis DRS techniques were discussed in our previous and submitted article of the first part of the study (revised version was submitted). The preprint of article is available on the link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997
Please double check spelling and grammar issues.
Response: done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Authors claim that “In this work, the degradation of Rhodamine B by two processes was conducted.”
However, the biodegradation of the target compound with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae was not achieved.
2. “The degradation of RhB by photocatalysis process with TiO2 doped with 5 % Cerium is observed under 254 nm UV radiations”. However, characterization of photocatalyst (such as composition, structure, etc.) was not provided.
3. No by-products were detected.
4. The importance and novelty of the work were not highlighted.
Extensive editing of English language required
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.
- Authors claim that “In this work, the degradation of Rhodamine B by two processes was conducted.”
However, the biodegradation of the target compound with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae was not achieved.
Response: We tested two different processes: the first one being a biological process and the second one an advanced oxidation process. However, due to the COVID pandemic, we were unable to conduct laboratory tests with activated sludge (largely used in the same studies) for the biological process. As an alternative, we conducted trials with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which has been previously studied for treating recalcitrant compounds. Unfortunately, the elimination results were not conclusive. Therefore, for the ecotoxicity assessment of the by-products, we focused only on the photocatalysis process.
- “The degradation of RhB by photocatalysis process with TiO2 doped with 5 % Cerium is observed under 254 nm UV radiations”. However, characterization of photocatalyst (such as composition, structure, etc.) was not provided.
Response: Reviewer is right, there is no characterization for this part of study. However, in our first part all characterizations. Structural, morphological, and optical analysis, performed by XRD-Rietveld, SEM-EDX, and UV-Vis DRS techniques were discussed. The first part of our study is available on line as a preprint (revised version was submitted to the journal) in the link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4428997 or http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2139/ssrn.4428997
- No by-products were detected.
Response: In this study, we did not investigate the treatment by-products. We hope to address this aspect in a future study.
- The importance and novelty of the work were not highlighted.
Response: In the end of the introduction and in the conclusion, we added sentences, to explain the novelty of present study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for addressing the comments. However, the fIgures quality needed to be improved, recommend it for the acceptance.
Please double check the manuscript for grammatical errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your recommandations to improve the quality of the manuscript. All requests have been studied and my colleguea Marie-Anne Hairan has corrected the english.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Article can be published in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your recommandations to improve the quality of the manuscript. All requests have been studied and my colleguea Marie-Anne Hairan has corrected the english.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
