Your comparison shows the intermittent method is 1.3-fold more effective than continuous treatment, but it also consumes ~33% more total energy over the full 40-minute process. …..Isn’t your conclusion of energy saving fundamentally flawed because you are comparing treatments with different total plasma-on times and ignoring the significant energy consumed during the 3-hour incubation period?
The study claims complete and irreversible bacterial inactivation, yet the revival test merely re-incubates the treated water in fresh media. This only confirms the absence of active, culturable cells, not the absence of viable but non-culturable (VBNC) cells. ……Without an ATP assay or a cell membrane integrity test, how can you rule out that your process simply induces a VBNC state, which could lead to regrowth in a real-world application?