The manuscript presents a novel photocatalytic fuel cell (PFC) system that integrates a TiO2/CdS photoanode and a formate dehydrogenase (FDH)-based biocathode to achieve pollutant degradation and CO2 reduction. The PFC demonstrates promising performance, including a high formate production rate of 7.13 μmol·h⁻¹ and a CO2 recovery efficiency of 76.1%. The synergistic dynamics between the photoanode and biocathode enhance the electron transfer kinetics, improving the efficiency of both pollutant degradation and CO2 reduction. The system also generates electricity with a peak power density of 186.3 μW cm⁻², making it a sustainable approach to energy generation and carbon-neutral pollutant removal. Minor revision is suggested to address the following comments.

1. The synthesis and preparation procedures for the photoanode and biocathode lack sufficient detail for reproducibility. More precise specifications of the materials and reaction conditions are needed to ensure replicability by other researchers.
2. The Faraday efficiency is presented as a key performance metric, but the methodology for its calculation is not clearly explained.
3. A more in-depth comparison with state-of-the-art PFC systems is recommended. While the results are impressive, a clearer benchmarking of performance metrics such as power density and formate yield against other leading technologies would clarify the novelty and advantages of this system.
4. There is limited discussion regarding the CO2 source and its implications for real-world applications. It would be beneficial to consider how this system can be adapted to work with atmospheric CO2 or industrial CO2 emissions, which are more relevant to real-world conditions.
5. The study acknowledges a decline in efficiency due to catalyst leakage over 16 cycles, but it would be helpful to characterize both the anode and cathode after the reaction.
6. The light intensities used in the photocatalytic experiments (56.84 W·m² for simulated sunlight and 6.49 W·m² for natural sunlight) seem relatively low compared to standard AM1.5G conditions (1000 W·m²). It would be beneficial to explain why these specific intensities were chosen and how they relate to real-world applications.
7. In the figures (SEM and TEM images in the Fig. S2), the font size of scale bars is not consistent. Additionally, many graphs in supporting information without error bar and the tables in the figures are too small. Ensuring that all microscopic images are properly labeled with the same font size of scale bars will make the data presentation clearer and more informative for readers.
8. Some important literatures should be cited when discussing the importance of the carbon neutral PFC.

The revision has addressed my concerns.