Green Synthesis of Gold, Silver, and Iron Nanoparticles for the Degradation of Organic Pollutants in Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

1. Author said that we describe a simple environment approach, BUT there are no information about this approach ? If the simple approach is the goal of this work, a details should be added in the abstract.
2. Line 3 : It can be used as Catalyst ; ‘’It’’ should be replaced by Nanoparticles or other, if not the phrase is not clear (as it can be refers to the approach and not nanoparticles).
3. Line 14 : The full name of MNPs should be added.
4. In general, the abstract is poor and need to be rewritten, as the goal of the work is not clear.

Introduction :

5. In order to review the introduction part, the hole text of introduction should be revised carrefully, as there are many words that are not separated. For example : propertieswhen ; bulkmaterials ; volumeratio ; speciallywhich etc…
6. Also, the authors couls add and discuss more references to show the objective of this work.

The discussion :

7. Without carefull comparaison on the photocatlytic/water treatements between MNPs, the pape ris not interesting for the readers of this journal. I syggest to add a new table summirizing all the results for MNPs on water tratments/ photocatlysis.
8. Authors could discuss in separated part the toxicity of MNPs during and after water treatments.

Conclusion :

9. Please take a care that conclusion are based on the analysis presented in the text.

Author Response

Reviewer's comments:

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.

The revised version is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment

Reviewer #1:

Abstract:

1. Author said that we describe a simple environment approach, BUT there are no information about this approach? If the simple approach is the goal of this work, a details should be added in the abstract.

Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.  

2. Line 3: It can be used as Catalyst; ‘’It’’ should be replaced by Nanoparticles or other, if not the phrase is not clear (as it can be refers to the approach and not nanoparticles).

Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.  

3. Line 14: The full name of MNPs should be added.

Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.

4. In general, the abstract is poor and need to be rewritten, as the goal of the work is not clear.

Comments: It is corrected and all comments are added in the revised abstract.

Introduction:

5. In order to review the introduction part, the whole text of introduction should be revised carefully, as there are many words that are not separated. For example: properties when; bulk materials; volume ratio; specially which etc…

Comments: In revised version, introduction section is corrected as per suggestion.  

6. Also, the authors could add and discuss more references to show the objective of this work.

Comments: In revised version, introduction section is expanded and more references are cited in the text.  .

The discussion:

7. Without careful comparison on the photocatlytic/water treatments between MNPs, the paper is not interesting for the readers of this journal. I suggest to add a new table summarizing all the results for MNPs on water treatments/ photocatalysis.

Comments: In revised version, new table related to Silver, Gold and Iron nanoparticles are included in the text. 

8. Authors could discuss in separated part the toxicity of MNPs during and after water treatments.

Comments: In revised version, toxicity related to Silver, Gold and Iron nanoparticles are discussed. 

Conclusion:

9. Please take a care that conclusion are based on the analysis presented in the text.

Comments: In revised version, conclusion is corrected. 

Reviewer 2 Report

While the review is moderately well written and covers a good deal of information, it needs more work. The authors are suggested to add a table presenting the morphology of green synthesized AgNPs, AuNPs and FeNPs and discuss how some of the NP properties can be related to the degradation of organic pollutants in wastewater. An example of such a table can be found in https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/25/14/3246/htm

Additionally, the manuscript needs careful revision for issues such as proper use of punctuation, spaces etc.

Author Response

Reviewer's comments:

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.

The revised version is highlighted in blue color text representing each comment

Reviewer 2

While the review is moderately well written and covers a good deal of information, it needs more work. The authors are suggested to add a table presenting the morphology of green synthesized AgNPs, AuNPs and FeNPs and discuss how some of the NP properties can be related to the degradation of organic pollutants in wastewater. An example of such a table can be found in https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/25/14/3246/htm

Additionally, the manuscript needs careful revision for issues such as proper use of punctuation, spaces etc.

Comments: In the revised version, a new table related to the synthesis of Silver, Gold and Iron nanoparticles are included in the text, and also recommended paper is cited.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Now the revised paper is sound and ready for publication in the journal.