1.Line 15: The full name of "CHIPS" needs to be supplemented in full: "(Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors)".
2.Line 19: The description of "However, municipal WRRFs are not conventionally designed for xenobiotics removal." is inaccurate; the connection between the "xenobiotics" mentioned herein and "semiconductor facilities" should be explicitly clarified. Revised translation: "However, municipal WRRFs are not conventionally designed for the removal of xenobiotics—specifically those associated with semiconductor facilities."
3.Lines 24-25: The description of "Bench-scale data suggested ROC might impair biological phosphorus removal" is inaccurate. Biological phosphorus removal can be quantified by experimental data, so the tentative expression of "might impair or potentially inhibit" is inappropriate.
4.It is recommended to rewrite the abstract to enhance overall logical coherence and the accuracy of conclusive statements.
5.Line 151: What is the scientific basis for controlling the pH within the range of 7.0-8.5? Why is a range such as 6.5-8.0 or 6.5-8.5 not adopted instead?
6.In the "Materials and Methods" section, please complete details regarding the collection time, quantity, and other relevant parameters of water samples and microbial samples.
7.The formatting of subscripts and superscripts for numbers in the chemical symbols within the figure legends is non-standard; please standardize all instances.
8.The font spacing on the x-axis and y-axis of Figure 8 is excessively dense. Please adjust the spacing to improve the visual clarity and aesthetics of the figure.
9.The differences displayed in the heatmap of Figure 8 are not prominently distinguishable. Please reprocess the relevant microbial detection data to highlight key findings, ensuring greater consistency between the figure and the discussions presented in the Results section.
10.Lines 199-205: It is well-established that numerous microbial taxa are involved in nitrogen and phosphorus removal in municipal wastewater treatment systems. Particularly when activated sludge is exposed to toxic stressors, some microorganisms with non-dominant abundance under normal conditions may become functionally dominant. Why were only AOB, Nitrobacter spp., and Nitrospira spp. (as reported in the cited literature) targeted for detection? This oversight directly leads to ambiguity in the subsequent mechanistic explanation for the impact of xenobiotics on biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal.
11.The paper lacks an in-depth analysis of the correlation between nitrogen/phosphorus removal efficiency and xenobiotics. Given that the paper has detected a variety of microbial metabolites, it is fully feasible to: (1) identify chemicals potentially used in semiconductor facilities through literature review; (2) clarify the residues of these relevant chemicals in the wastewater; and (3) establish, via literature research, how these specific chemicals may induce corresponding microbial metabolic responses—thereby validating the relevant findings of this study. It is recommended to refine the discussions in the paper in accordance with this analytical framework.

I think it can be accepted. Many thanks.