Study on the Mechanism and Control Strategy of Advanced Treatment of Yeast Wastewater by Ozone Catalytic Oxidation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper represents the mechanism and control strategy of advanced treatment of yeast wastewater by ozone catalytic oxidation process. The article is very careful and presents interesting research results. A well and correctly conducted literature review indicates the aim of the research and confirms its legitimacy. Therefore, some points should be improved.
1. The abstract is overly complicated, and it takes a long time to decipher the conclusions. As a result, it must be more precise.
1. It is suggested that the most recent publications about the advanced treatment of yeast wastewater by the ozone catalytic oxidation process be included in the introduction section to clarify the research gaps. For example-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122774
https://doi.org/10.1680/jsuin.20.00031
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119864
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118041
3. All numerical values should be written with two digits after the dot.
4. For text clarity, would you refrain from using additional words, mostly meaningless words, which can be omitted, or some archaic words see e.g., "respectively", "thus", "hence", therefore", "furthermore", "basically,", "meanwhile", "wherein", "herein", "Nonetheless", "Perceivably," etc. The authors are invited to check out the full text carefully and make corresponding revisions.
5. Grammar needs to check the entire manuscript.
6. Conclusions are not remarkable; they should be more delegated.
7. Check the reference style with DOI.
Author Response
We were very grateful for the reviewer's comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accroding to these comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work deals with the potential of catalytic ozonation for the treatment of yeast wastewater in a batch environment. The authors were not compared the performance of different processes in the degradation of pollutants via comparative tests. Design of the study also is not proper for scientific journal. After careful reading the text, I can recommended this manuscript for publication only after major revision:
- All abbreviations must be checked carefully.
- Some typo and grammar errors can be found in the manuscript, and the authors should check the whole manuscript very carefully to avoid any mistakes.
- English language must be improved before publication. The quality of language is very poor, so it needs revised grammatically by native editor.
- Degradation kinetic studies for catalytic ozonation process are missed.
Introduction part need to be improved by focus on other AOPs towards degradation/mineralization of organics matters. Some relevant papers can be used and cited to well support this section, such as Desalination and Water Treatment, Scientific Reports,
- Comparative tests (catalyst, O3 and O3+catalyst) are missed. What is the synergistic effect between O3 and catalysts under same operational conditions? For further information, please refer to Separation and Purification Technology, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Water Process Engineering,
- Reusability and stability tests of used catalysts are missed. Please explain.
- Standard deviation values (error bars) must be given in plots of experimental.
- The appearance of figures is not proper for publication in a scientific journal. Please revise.
- The discussion is very simple and superficial, hence, this consider must be improved before it can be published. All chemical reactions related to degradation of pollutant along with formation of reactive oxidizing species must be presented in details in the DISCUSSION section. In addition, chemical reactions associated to the present of organic anions and those scavenging effect must be given. The discussion about mechanism of degradation should be improved by present related chemical reactions effectively.
- Biodegradability studies are missed for evaluating treated effluent. It can be determined by COS and AOS indices as mentioned in Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2017, 336, pp. 42–53; Journal of Water Process Engineering, 2020, 38, 101693.
- Scavenging tests to determine the involved reactive species are missed. How authors confirm the degradation process in their work?
- Experimental conditions must be presented in the caption of figures.
Author Response
We were very grateful for the reviewer's comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to these comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The answers to comments 6, 8, 11 and 13 are not convincing and logical, and therefore I cannot make a correct judgment about the revised version. Thus, I leave the final decision to the editor.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
