Next Article in Journal
Yield, Physiology, Fruit Quality and Water Footprint in Persian Lime (Citrus latifolia Tan.) in Response to Soil Moisture Tension in Two Phenological Stages in Campeche, México
Next Article in Special Issue
Effectiveness of Non-Thermal Plasma Induced Degradation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Water
Previous Article in Journal
External Phosphorus Loading in New Lakes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Reed Grasses (Phragmites australis) Performance in PFAS Removal from Water: A Phytoremediation Pilot Plant Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Novel Fluorinated Nitrogen-Rich Porous Organic Polymer for Efficient Removal of Perfluorooctanoic Acid from Water

Water 2022, 14(7), 1010; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071010
by Gaoxi Liu 1, Xiaohui Wei 1, Peiru Luo 1, Shuyu Dai 1, Wenfen Zhang 1,2,* and Yanhao Zhang 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2022, 14(7), 1010; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071010
Submission received: 20 February 2022 / Revised: 15 March 2022 / Accepted: 17 March 2022 / Published: 22 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Removal of PFAS from Water)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 1: The image of the POP-4F powder should be larger.

Line 38: "PFAS). Altough" instead of "PFAS).Although"

Here and in numerous other places in the text, a space should be placed between a dot and the first word of the next sentence.

Line 201: an irregularly

Line 314: "structure of" instead of "structurethe of"

Line 322: It would be interesting if the authors would explain in a few sentences how their findings can be implemented in full scale applications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports a novel fluorinated nitrogen-rich porous organic polymer for the efficient removal of perfluorooctanoic acid from water. The research methodology was well designed and the report was well written. Few comments below can be considered by authors to improve the manuscript quality.

  • Line 57-69: some quantitative assessments are required. Lumping good vs bad has no scientific merit. Please don’t lump references as well, mention detail when citing.
  • Lines 70-79: many statements here are actually assumptions. If they are fact, they must be the implication of the findings of this study. Please amend accordingly.
  • Section 2.1: provide the specification and suppliers.
  • Line 149: how to ensure there was no effect of filtration? Some contaminants might be adsorbed by the filter material. Was there any measurement of the effect of sample pretreatment on the concentration?
  • 5: please show the goodness of the fit. Why did other isotherms not attempt?
  • Please discuss the reason for decreasing performance after multiple reuses. It seems that at the fifth, significant performance loss occurred. Some statistical analysis is also required here to identify if the performance was statistically constant over multiple useages.
  • Please report the adsorption capacity and rate in abstract and conclusion.
  • Please revise many typos and spacing errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors wave performed a very useful work in the field of water purification. A new porous polymer (POP-4F) was synthesized and used for adsorption of perfluorinated and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water. Because of high adsorption efficiency and rapid adsorption/desorption, POP-4F seems to be a prospective adsorbent for water purification. The experimental results look convincing. The paper is written clear. Therefore, I recommend to accept the paper in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments have been addressed. I recommend for publication of the revised version.

Back to TopTop