Synthesis and Peroxide Activation Mechanism of Bimetallic MOF for Water Contaminant Degradation: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor revision is needed as follow:

1. The title of the paper involves mechanisms, but the mechanism part of the paper is not emphasized. Therefore, the author should consider revising the title.

2. As for a review paper, the latest papers related to hydrogen peroxide activation is recommended for authors to read and cite

-（Catalysts 2023, 13, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13010010）; 
-（Separation and Purification Technology 312 (2023) 123452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123452

3. The author should provide a table summarizing a comparison of hydrogen peroxide activation by different MOF materials.

4. The author should increase the discussion of the role of free radicals to highlight the mechanism part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1-    Photocatalysis process in large scale applications should be highlighted in the introduction part. Please, see, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102847) ; (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.09.167).

2-      There is no proper research methodology section portrayed in this study. The author should at least have a research flowchart that portrays the several stages in this study.

3-      Add more descriptive figures showing the photocatalytic mechanism of the discussed materials/composites.

4-      The authors should list and compare more recent studies highlighting the conducted preparation method, environmental conditions and removal efficiency in a summarized table.

5-      What is the impact of using these materials/composites on the environment (Soil, Water and Air)? Revise in an additional section.

6-      The authors have to consider the copy rights of all figures.

7-      Figures from 1 to 7 are poor and should be regenerated (increase font size and resolution).

8-      The authors should list and compare more recent studies about material regeneration and stability in a summarized table.

9-      An additional section about the common sludge composition and characteristics should be added.

10-  The authors should identify the limitations and future prospects of this review in an additional section.

11-  The recommended future studies should be added in the conclusion part.

12-  Bibliography part must be updated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept.