Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater with GO/MOFs composites.

Graphene oxide/metal-organic frameworks (GO/MOFs) have been prepared via solvothermal synthesis with ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, zirconium acetate and terephthalic acid for the purpose of removing organic pollutants from wastewater. The composites were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, infrared spectrometry, and XRD. Tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II were implemented as model pollutants to evaluate the efficacy of the GO/MOFs in water purification, in which 50 mg of Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO was mixed with 100 mL of 10 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 30 mg/L, or 50 mg/L tetracycline hydrochloride solution and 25 mg/L, 35 mg/L, 45 mg/L, or 60 mg/L orange II solution, respectively. The removal efficacy after 4 hours was determined to be 96.1%, 75.8%, 55.4%, and 30.1%, and 98.8%, 91.9%, 71.1%, and 66.2%, respectively. The kinetics of pollutant removal was investigated for both tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II and excellent correlation coefficients of greater than 0.99 were obtained. The high efficacy of these MOFs in pollutant removal, coupled with their inexpensive preparation indicates the feasibility of their implementation in strategies for treating waste liquid. As such, it is anticipated that Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO composites will be widely applied in wastewater purification.

1. Introduction

With emerging environmental concerns related to clean energy and pollution, environmental remediation has positioned itself at the forefront of conversation and become a prominent area of research. Over the past few decades, due to accelerated urbanization and excessive population growth, copious amounts of organic pollutants have been discharged into environment [1-4]. Environmental pollution has aroused world-wide concern, with particular urgency directed towards water pollution, as the seriousness of this insidious problem is increasing steadily [5, 6]. Although antibiotics have greatly improved the quality and duration of human life, people who drink unclean water containing antibiotic-resistant bacteria may result in a serious consequence of incurable superbugs. In addition, the wastewater discharged from textiles, leather, paper, printing, dyes, plastics, electroplating, and steel manufacturing factories contains a large amount of heavy metals and organic dyes, causing extreme damage to the environment and various ecosystems [7, 8]. A long-lasting exposure of organic dyes can cause skin irritation and even cancer or genetic mutations. Substantial effort has been devoted to developing advanced materials to improve the performance of water purification technology.

Over the past 20 years, MOFs have emerged as promising porous materials and attracted increasing attention of researchers in the fields of energy storage [9, 10], adsorption and separation [11-13], catalysis [14, 15], drug delivery [16, 17], carbon dioxide capture [18, 19], chemical sensing [20], antibiotic [21, 22] and others [23-27]. In this regard, photocatalytic reduction methods have demonstrated high selectivity for the pollutant of interest with minimal damage to the ecosystems and are generally inexpensive.

Since organic dyes display varied toxicity and are resistant to photodecomposition and oxidation, they pose serious threats to water quality, and are difficult to purge from the environment. Previously developed technologies rely on physical, chemical, and biological methods such as the use of activated carbon, alginate, and related techniques. Since the inception of MOFs, the number of reports detailing their implementation in water treatment, including the degradation of hexavalent chromium ions and the treatment of organic dyes in wastewater, has increased steadily. Liang and others [28, 29] prepared meth-68(In)-NH2 (40 mg) via solvothermal synthesis with 2-aminoterephthalic acid and indium nitrate in DMF solvent. To test the efficacy of chromium salt degradation, this solution was added to a 20 mg/L Cr(VI) solution (40 mL), followed by addition of H2SO4 and NaOH to adjust the pH, and the system was irradiated with a Xe lamp for 180 min. The highest degradation rate in the ethanol system was 97%, which was 2.25 times and 2.1 times that of ammonium oxalate and ammonium formate, respectively. Wang et al. [30] prepared CMTi by compounding MIL-125(Ti), through the reaction of g-C3N4 with terephthalic acid and tetra-tert-butyl titanate via solvothermal synthesis at 150°C for 48 h, for the degradation of rhodamine B. A significant degradation (92.5%) of rhodamine was observed after irradiation for 60 min with a 300 W Xe lamp. This highly efficient degradation process is attributed to the adsorption of the substance itself and the π-π interaction between the adsorbent and the substance. Enamul Haque et al. [31] prepared MOF-235 by reacting terephthalic acid with FeCl3·6H2O in DMF solvent for 24 h, for the degradation of methyl orange and methylene blue. The kinetics of adsorption was modeled and estimated to 477 mg/g for methyl orange and 187 mg/g for methylene blue.

For most mono-metal MOFs, the active sites of metal ions for organic ligands are not prominently enough, and the preparation of metal-organic framework materials using bimetallic ions is conducive to the synergistic effect between metal ions. In this paper, we report the development of an efficient MOFs-based adsorbent and its application in removal of two classes of common environmental pollutants. Zirconium has excellent corrosion resistance to a variety of acids, bases and salts. As metal ions of MOFs, Zr and Fe can play a synergistic role in removal of organic pollutants. A key design feature is the use of a bimetallic framework of Zr and Fe, which effectively creates more active sites and results in highly efficient removal of organic pollutants. The composite materials are prepared using solvothermal synthesis with GO, H2BDC, zirconium acetate, and ferrous sulfate heptahydrate as the principle components, and demonstrate effective for removal of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II.

2. Experimental materials and methods

2.1 Raw materials

The ligands terephthalic acid (H2BDC, 98%), ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, zirconium acetate, and tetracycline hydrochloride Orange II were purchased from Aladdin Biological Technology Co. LTD (Shanghai, China). Graphene Oxide (GO) was purchased from Beike New Material Technology Co. LTD (Beijing, China).

2.2 Preparation of GO/MOFs

The compound was synthesized via hydrothermal synthesis. Dimethylformamide (10 mL) was added to a beaker containing terephthalic acid (3.3215 g) and stirred for 30 min with a magnetic stir bar. Ferrous sulfate heptahydrate (2.8133 g) and zirconium acetate (2.6 mL) were dissolved in distilled water. The prepared solutions were then transferred to a 50 mL reactor and reacted at 120°C for 10 h. Finally, the reaction mixture was filtered and washed thoroughly with ethanol and distilled water. The Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO was dried at 80°Cfor 12 h.

The sample was analyzed using infrared spectroscopy (IR) with KBr pellets and exhibted key signals at 2000–400 cm-1. Further analyses were performed with an XRD diffractometer (D-5000XRD, Liaoning Dandong Tongda Science and Technology Co. Ltd., China) under the conditions of 30 kv and 20 mA with a 2θ scan range of 5–80, a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM, JSM-6700F, Japan), and a UV spectrometer (UV-2550, Shimadzu, Japan).

2.3 Removal of organic contaminant

Tetracycline hydrochloride and Orange II were chosen as model contaminants to evaluate the degradation ability of Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO. Solutions of varying concentrations (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm, and 50 ppm) of tetracycline hydrochloride and Orange II were prepared. The Zr/Fe-MOF (50 mg) was added to each solution and stirred under natural visible light. The concentration of each analyte was measured every hour using UV-visible spectroscopy (tetracycline hydrochloride, 360 nm, and orange II, 485 nm) [32] to determine the rate of degradation as follows:

Ce, C0, V and m are the equilibrium concentrations of the solution (ppm), the initial concentrations of the solution (ppm), the volume of the solution (L), and the mass of the GO/MOFs, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Structural characterization

The IR spectrum (Fig 1) of the GO/MOFs showed strong absorption peaks at 1402 cm-1 and 1677 cm-1. The presence of an intense carbonyl peak at ca. 1710 cm-1 is attributed to the equivalency of the two carbonyl groups in the carboxylate-coordinated metal ion, in which electron clouds tend to be delocalized due to the conjugated π bond of . Instead, relatively strong absorption peaks at 1610–1550 cm-1 and 1420–1300 cm-1 were observed. These two peaks provide diagnostic signals for evaluating the reactivity of the carboxylic acids with the metal salts.

Fig 1

IR of MOFs.

After confirming the presence of the desired MOF by XRD (Fig 2), the remaining metal salt and terephthalic acid can be easily removed with aqueous and organic washes, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that the product generated is a new substance. As evidenced by SEM images (Fig 3), the composite formed consists of GO with layered and sheet-like structures containing electrons and MOFs, which tend to have different morphological structures, leading to significantly different structural features.

Fig 2

XRD of GO/MOFs.

Fig 3

SEM of GO/MOFs (a) and GO (b).

Fig 4 shows that the surface area of GO/MOFs was 1.5061 m2/g. The single point surface area at P/Po = 0.249224654 was 8.9549 m2/g. The average particle size was 85.2394 nm, and the t-Plot micropore volume was 0.004155 cm3/g, indicating a mesoporous material.

Fig 4

N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms of GO/MOFs.

3.2 Removal of organic pollutant by MOFs

The concentration of pollutants is a key factor that affects their adsorption in wastewater treatment. By implementing key structural changes in the MOF framework, the rate of pollutant removal was markedly increased. Competition of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II for active sites on the MOF has a profound impact on the rate of pollutant degradation. The decomposition products can also compete for binding, which further indicates the necessity for high selectivity of the pollutant of interest [33]. In addition, when the concentrations of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II are high, photons are not able to effectively penetrate the solution, which in turn slows the rate of degradation. Despite these challenges, the Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO designed here demonstrates high rates of pollutant removal for tetracycline hydrochloride and Orange II at relatively low concentrations.

In order to investigate the efficacy of MOFs designed here in removing organic pollutants, we studied the removal of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II at varying concentrations. Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO (50 mg) was mixed with 100 mL of 10 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 30 mg/L, or 50 mg/L tetracycline hydrochloride solution and 20 mg/L, 30 mg/L, 50 mg/L, or 60 mg/L orange II solution. The results revealed that the lower the concentration, the higher the removal rate of the pollutants.

Upon adsorption of pollutants, the Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO tends to precipitate thus effectively reducing the concentration of active sites in solution, and slowing the rate of degradation [34, 35]. To determine the reusability of the Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO, the used Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO was washed with water, dried, and reused. The results showed that after three cycles, the decrease in activity was only 39% and 31%, which indicates a reasonable robustness, and the possibility for reusability. The results of TC removal by Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO and GBCM350 activated carbon [36], Fe3O4@SiO2-chitosan/GO [37], ZIF-8 [38], NH2-MIL-101(Cr) [39], MIL-101(HCl) [40], and Uio-66 [41] were compared, and Fig 5 shows the superior activity of Zr/Fe-MOFs/GO relative to other adsorbents.

Fig 5

Comparison of the GO/MOFs adsorbent with other materials on TC adsorption.

In order to fully understand the removal of pollutants using the GO/MOFs, the kinetics of tetracycline and orange II degradation was examined. In accordance with reports in the literature, removal of contaminants was described by the following kinetic equations [42-44]:

the Pseudo-first-order kinetic model: the Pseudo-second-order kinetic model:

In these equations, Ct, C0, k1, k2 and t are the concentration of tetracycline at time t, the initial concentration of tetracycline and orange II, the reaction rate constant (min-1), and the reaction time (min). qt and qe represent the amounts (mg•g-1) of the adsorbents at time t and equilibrium, respectively. The adsorption results of GO /MOFs on tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II are shown in Figs 6 and 7 and Table 1. The pseudo-first order model and pseudo-second order model both appropriately describe the removal of tetracycline hydrochloride.

Fig 6

The Pseudo-first-order kinetic model of GO/MOFs on TC.

Fig 7

The Pseudo-second-order kinetic model of GO/MOFs on TC.

Table 1

Parameters of the process of tetracycline hydrochloride by GO/MOFs.

Concentration	pseudo-first order		pseudo-second order
	K	R2	K	R2
50 mg/L	0.00103	0.99378	0.02033	0.96709
30 mg/L	-0.0022	0.99862	0.02826	0.98143
20 mg/L	-0.00183	0.99752	0.0258	0.94197
10mg/L	-0.01195	0.99602	0.04032	0.96709

In order to study the removal of organic dyes by GO/MOFs, Orange II was chosen as the model pollutant. The kinetic results are shown in Figs 8 and 9 and Table 2, and its degradation is well described by pseudo-second-order kinetics.

Fig 8

The Pseudo-first-order kinetic model of GO/MOFs on Orange II.

Fig 9

The Pseudo-second-order kinetic model of GO/MOFs on orange II.

Table 2

Parameters of the process of orange II by GO/MOFs.

Concentration	pseudo-first order		pseudo-second order
	K	R2	K	R2
60 mg/L	0.00232	0.98146	0.01078	0.99798
45 mg/L	-0.00164	0.82498	0.01523	0.99989
35 mg/L	-0.00633	0.99139	0.01405	0.99949
25 mg/L	-0.01086	0.9221	0.01983	0.99586

Based on the above results, the mechanism of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II removal by GO/MOFs composite material is as follows. The specific surface area and pores of the GO/MOFs composite material facilitate the diffusion of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II from the solution to the surface and pores of the GO/MOFs [45-47]. This is driven by favorable interactions between the analytes and the GO/MOFs, in which polar groups, such as hydroxyl and amino groups, engage in hydrogen bonding with the hydrophilic groups on the GO/MOFs. In addition, π-systems present in both the analytes and the GO/MOFs also facilitate favorable π-π interactions [48-51]. As a result, the surface electronegativity of the GO/MOFs composite changes slightly, which further affects the electrostatic interaction between the GO/MOFs and tetracycline hydrochloride or orange II. Taken together, these key interactions including hydrogen bonding, π-π interactions, and electrostatic attraction all contribute to the high efficacy of GO/MOFs mediated degradation of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II.

4. Conclusion

GO/MOFs have been successfully prepared by solvothermal synthesis and characterized with IR, XRD and SEM. The MOF has demonstrated excellent efficiency in degradation of tetracycline hydrochloride and orange II under natural light irradiation which has important implications in water remediation technology. The experimental findings of pseudo-first-order decay and pseudo-second-order decay are in excellent agreement with similar systems reported in the literature. In addition to achieving an excellent pollutant removal strategy, the results presented herein also explore alternative avenues to prepare metal organic frameworks in a highly efficient manner. Therefore, it is anticipated that GO/MOFs composites will find widespread application for the removal of organic pollutants in a variety of contexts in water purification area.

(RAR)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-03199

Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater with GO/MOFs composites

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that CAREFULLY addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

2a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

2b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, synthesis, characterization and organic contaminants removal performance of GO/MOFs composite is described. The methodology and applications presented in the manuscript are interesting and will appeal to a broader readership of Plos One. The manuscript is recommended for publication subjected to addressing following comments:

1. GO/MOFs first explained then abbreviation should be used.

2. The introduction section needs to be modified as the discussion appears to be more scattered in nature.

3. To gain the porous parameters (e. g. the specific surface area, total pore volume, the surface area and pore volume of the microspores), N2 adsorption-desorption experiments for GO/MOFs are suggested to supply.

4. Proper characterization of GO like XRD, SEM and Raman should be included.

5. The dye absorption behavior, suggesting authors use commercial activated carbon as the benchmark; and evaluate the absorption efficiency of these GO/MOFs composite.

6. The cycle performance of the adsorbent is suggested to be checked.

7. The English should be carefully polished. Also, many format problems should be addressed.

8. The quality of ALL OF FIGURES should be further decorated. The following literature should be consulted and employed: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27, 32874–32887; ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2019, 11, 18165-18177; ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2019, 11, 43949-43963.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitiled “Removal of organic contaminantsfrom wastewater with GO/MOFscomposites” submitted by Fuhua Wei et al is an nice submission regarding Environmental sciences. The idea , concept and the methodology of the manuscript is novel as well as well defined however the manuscript needs to be corrected before acceptance. The comments are :

1. Please use full form of abbreviation when using first time in the manuscript. What is MOF means here?

2. Line 35-39, meaning is unclear with grammatical mistakes. Rephrase it.

3. Author has mentioned many times about the toxicity of the previous materials in introduction. They need to be clear with statement about the biological toxicity with proper citations. In general, toxicity applied to the biological toxicity of materials, metals or dyes to the living cells present in environmental sources. Author should focus also in this issue in the introduction. Some suggested citations are mentioned in the last comment.

4. Introduction should also mention, what is the need of the new material and what is the hypothesis of synthesis of this new material.

5. Why Zr and Fe? Any specific properties which led to better environmental application? Mention in introduction.

6. It will be better if, author can present the mechanism mentioned in the result and discussion section through a schematic diagram.

7. Lastly authors are suggested to cite some recent articles about the metal toxicity in environment. Some of the suggested one are: DOI: 10.1039/C7RA05943D, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.07.037,https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2018.1503598 , DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.111888 , DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104535 , DOI: 10.2217/nnm-2020-0138, DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100299; DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100345; https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b01522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.07.020 , DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115482

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 May 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater with GO/MOFs composites”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to revise the manuscript. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer#1

Comments to the Author

In this manuscript, synthesis, characterization and organic contaminants removal performance of GO/MOFs composite is described. The methodology and applications presented in the manuscript are interesting and will appeal to a broader readership of Plos One. The manuscript is recommended for publication subjected to addressing following comments:

Comment 1: GO/MOFs first explained then abbreviation should be used.

Response to Comment 1: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript.According to your comment, we have added the interpretation of GO/MOFs in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Page 1,lines 10)

Comment 2: The introduction section needs to be modified as the discussion appears to be more scattered in nature.

Response to Comment 2: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your comment, the introduction section have modified in the revised paper. (Page 2-3)

Comment 3: To gain the porous parameters (e. g. the specific surface area, total pore volume, the surface area and pore volume of the microspores), N2 adsorption-desorption experiments for GO/MOFs are suggested to supply.

Response to Comment 3: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. According to your comment, We have added the Figure 4 , the surface area and pore volume of the microspores in the revised paper. (Page 7,lines145-148;Page 8,Fig.4)

Comment 4: Proper characterization of GO like XRD, SEM and Raman should be included.

Response to Comment 4:Thank you for your valuable suggestion. According to your comment, We have added the characterization of GO in the revised paper. (Page 6,Fig.2;page 7,Fig.3(b))

Comment 5: The dye absorption behavior, suggesting authors use commercial activated carbon as the benchmark; and evaluate the absorption efficiency of these GO/MOFs composite.

Response to Comment 5: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have purchased the activated carbon, but the manufacturer has not delivered the product for a long time. We are very sorry about it.The data will be added to future research.

Comment 6. The cycle performance of the adsorbent is suggested to be checked.

Response to Comment 6: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are sorry about the mistakes. According to your comment, The cycle performance of the adsorbent have corrected in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.(Page 9,lines 172-173)

Comment 7. The English should be carefully polished. Also, many format problems should be addressed.

Response to Comment 7: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are sorry about the mistakes. According to your comment, the revised paper have checked by a native English speaker because there are some grammatical and spelling errors that have to be corrected. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Comment 8. The quality of ALL OF FIGURES should be further decorated. The following literature should be consulted and employed: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27, 32874–32887; ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2019, 11, 18165-18177; ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2019, 11, 43949-43963.

Response to Comment 8: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your comment, we have added the reference [7]、[2]、[12]in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Reviewer#2:

The manuscript entitiled “Removal of organic contaminantsfrom wastewater with GO/MOFscomposites” submitted by Fuhua Wei et al is an nice submission regarding Environmental sciences. The idea , concept and the methodology of the manuscript is novel as well as well defined however the manuscript needs to be corrected before acceptance. The comments are :

Comment 1: Please use full form of abbreviation when using first time in the manuscript. What is MOF means here?

Response to Comment 1: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript .We are sorry about the mistakes. According to your comment, we have added the interpretation of GO/MOFs in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Page 1,lines 10)

Comment 2: Line 35-39, meaning is unclear with grammatical mistakes. Rephrase it.

Response to Comment 2: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are sorry about the mistakes. According to your comment, the revised paper have checked by a native English speaker because there are some grammatical and spelling errors that have to be corrected. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Page 2,lines 35-38)

Comment 3: Author has mentioned many times about the toxicity of the previous materials in introduction. They need to be clear with statement about the biological toxicity with proper citations. In general, toxicity applied to the biological toxicity of materials, metals or dyes to the living cells present in environmental sources. Author should focus also in this issue in the introduction. Some suggested citations are mentioned in the last comment.

Response to Comment 3: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your comment, we have added the reference [3]、[5]、[6]、[21]、[22]、[23]、[24]in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Comment 4: Introduction should also mention, what is the need of the new material and what is the hypothesis of synthesis of this new material.

Response to Comment 4: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. According to your comment, we have added the content in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Page 3,lines 76-81)

Comment 5: Why Zr and Fe? Any specific properties which led to better environmental application? Mention in introduction.

Response to Comment 5: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. According to your comment, we have added the content in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Page 3,lines 82-85)

Comment 6. It will be better if, author can present the mechanism mentioned in the result and discussion section through a schematic diagram.

Response to Comment 6: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. According to your comment, Due to time problems, the schematic diagram could not be provided in time. We are sorry about it. The schematic diagram will be added to future research.

Comment 7. Lastly authors are suggested to cite some recent articles about the metal toxicity in environment. Some of the suggested one are: DOI: 10.1039/C7RA05943D, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.07.037,https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2018.1503598 , DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.111888 , DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104535 , DOI: 10.2217/nnm-2020-0138, DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100299; DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100345; https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b01522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.07.020 , DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115482

Response to Comment 7: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your comment, we have added the reference [3]、[5]、[6]、[21]、[22]、[23]、[24]in the revised paper. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

7 Jun 2021

Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater with GO/MOFs composites

PONE-D-21-03199R1

Dear Dr. Wei,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: the authors have addressed all the comments and made the revision properly.The manuscript can be recommended for acceptance.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

21 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-03199R1

Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater with GO/MOFs composites

Dear Dr. Wei:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Yogendra Kumar Mishra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE