A Review of Methods for Removal of Ceftriaxone from Wastewater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript entitled “A review of methods for removal of ceftriaxone from wastewater” submitted by Petro Karungamye, Anita Rugaika, Kelvin Mtei, Revocatus Machunda, can be considered for publication in Journal of Xenobiotics, after a major revision.
Here is a list of my specific comments:
- Page 2, line 51: “Ceftriaxone, like other antibiotics…”. This paragraph should be clearly reworded.
- Page 2, line 55: “Antibiotics in water can cause microbes…”. Add here some references.
- Page 3, line 82: “So, this review paper presents…”. At the end of Introduction, the main objectives of this study should be clearly and detailed presented.
- Page 3, line 84: Delete the title “2. Materials and Methods” and include all observations into Introduction.
- Page 3, 3. Methods used to analyze ceftriaxone in aqueous and biological samples: In this section the advantages/ disadvantages of each analytical method should be clearly highlighted.
- Page 3, line 111: “Absorption spectroscopy…”. Add here a table (similar with Table 2) for the other analytical methods used for analysis of this antibiotic.
- Page 4, line 144: Replace “Table 1 summarizes” with “Table 3 summarizes”.
- Page 5, line 150: “Apart from these which have been…”. (a) This paragraph should be clearly reworded. (b) Add a table with the most relevant examples. (c) The performances of each removal method should be highlighted.
- Page 6, 5. Conclusions: This section should be reorganized. Delete (a), (b),…, and provide a clear presentation of the most important aspects included in this section.
Author Response
I thank you very much for taking your time and making these constructive comments. I am hereby writting to respond on the comments you adressed.
Page 2, line 51: “Ceftriaxone, like other antibiotics…”. This paragraph should be clearly reworded.
Tha paragraph has been reworded. Line 51-64 in the current manuscript
Page 2, line 55: “Antibiotics in water can cause microbes…”. Add here some references.
Some recent references added in the current manuscript
Page 3, line 82: “So, this review paper presents…”. At the end of Introduction, the main objectives of this study should be clearly and detailed presented.
The paragraph has been rewritten. Line 92-100
Page 3, line 84: Delete the title “2. Materials and Methods” and include all observations into Introduction.
The section of materials and methods has been deleted and the corresponding information have been included in introduction.
Page 3, 3. Methods used to analyze ceftriaxone in aqueous and biological samples: In this section the advantages/ disadvantages of each analytical method should be clearly highlighted.
A new section has been generated involving the methods used to analyse antibiotics. The advantaged of the methods have been stated in each method. Section 2, Line 101 in the current document
Page 3, line 111: “Absorption spectroscopy…”. Add here a table (similar with Table 2) for the other analytical methods used for analysis of this antibiotic.
A subsection 2.2 line 159 has been inroduced describing Spectrophotometric methods used for analysis of pharmaceuticals and antibiotics in particular.
Page 4, line 144: Replace “Table 1 summarizes” with “Table 3 summarizes”.
Changes done in the current document. Line 328
Page 5, line 150: “Apart from these which have been…”. (a) This paragraph should be clearly reworded. (b) Add a table with the most relevant examples. (c) The performances of each removal method should be highlighted.
This section has been removed from the previous part and the methods have been described in section 3, Line 214 in the current document
Page 6, 5. Conclusions: This section should be reorganized. Delete (a), (b),…, and provide a clear presentation of the most important aspects included in this section.
Changes done accordingly in the document. Line 335 - 348
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for inviting me to review the manuscript " A review of methods for removal of ceftriaxone from wastewater”. The manuscript is very interesting, but from my humble point of view, this requires some changes that should be made previously that the manuscript will be published in Journal of Xenobiotics.
1. The authors of the manuscript must write the working hypotheses indicating the relevance of this study, environmental aspects, as well as the socio-economic impact at the end of the introduction.
2. In section 4. Methods for removal of ceftriaxone from water and wastewater. Would the authors please add a few sentences regarding methods for wastewater treatment (you can refer to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121608)
3. The conclusions should be amplified and improved to clarify the results obtained in this review study. Also conclusion section should be written in paragraph form.
4. English improvement is required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking your time to read and making these constructive comments on my manuscript. These comments have improved my document a lot. I now respond on the comments
The authors of the manuscript must write the working hypotheses indicating the relevance of this study, environmental aspects, as well as the socio-economic impact at the end of the introduction.
The relevance of this study is based on the consequences of antibiotics in the environments. Ceftriaxone is one of the most dispensed antibiotics especially in developing countries. Despite of this fact, there is a scarce of information regarding their occurance and levels in different environmental samples. Lack of this information should not prohibit studies on methods to analyse and remove it from environmental samples. This is for the purpose of protecting environmental and public health.
In section 4. Methods for removal of ceftriaxone from water and wastewater. Would the authors please add a few sentences regarding methods for wastewater treatment (you can refer to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121608)
A new section involving Methods used for removal of antibiotics from wastewater has been intoduced in the document. In this section the methods have been described including advantages of the particular methods. From line 214.
The conclusions should be amplified and improved to clarify the results obtained in this review study. Also conclusion section should be written in paragraph form.
The conclusion has been rewritten. Line 335-348
English improvement is required.
I thank you. I tried to improve in some sentences and paragraphs
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1) There are some techniques which can be utilised to characterize the drugs such as ceftriaxone without derivatizing them. To cite a few, MALDI-TOF-MS and ESIMS. If there are any research papers are published using these techniques, I strongly encourage the authors to search and cite them in the current review article, which will be useful to the readers.
2) Also, the authors can search for LCMS and suggested to include those literature, if it is available.
3) This sentence can be rewritten
Among the techniques studied for removal of ceftriaxone from aqueous systems includes 142 photochemical degradation, ion ex-change, chemical oxidation, biological treatment and 143 adsorption [62].
3) Apart from these which have been studied specific for ceftriaxone, there are several
methods studies for treatment of antibiotics in different samples.
The above studies can be rewritten as follows
Apart from these which have been studied specific for ceftriaxone, there are several
methods for treatment of antibiotics in different samples.
Author Response
Thank you for reading and making comments on our manuscript.
There are some techniques which can be utilised to characterize the drugs such as ceftriaxone without derivatizing them. To cite a few, MALDI-TOF-MS and ESIMS. If there are any research papers are published using these techniques, I strongly encourage the authors to search and cite them in the current review article, which will be useful to the readers.
Several methods capable of analysing most of antibiotics, are also potential for analysis of Ceftriaxone. There are methods which can perform well in analysis of antibiotics but they ale least studied in that regard. We found a lack of enough information related to analysis of antibiotics or ceftriaxone using the proposed methods. A section for mehods used for analysis of antibiotics has been added. Line 101
Also, the authors can search for LCMS and suggested to include those literature, if it is available.
A subsection of chromatographic methods (Line 108) has been added. In this section different chromatographic techniques have been described. This includes TLC, GC, HPLC and advanced HPLC based techniques like Liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry (LC-MS), Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-MS/MS (UHPLC-MS/MS), and Liquid chromatography linked to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Their use in analysis of antibiotics has been added. LIne 154-157
This sentence can be rewritten
Among the techniques studied for removal of ceftriaxone from aqueous systems includes 142 photochemical degradation, ion ex-change, chemical oxidation, biological treatment and 143 adsorption [62].
The section has been rewritten
Apart from these which have been studied specific for ceftriaxone, there are several methods studies for treatment of antibiotics in different samples.
This section has been rewritten. Line 214
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my previous remarks and comments have been considered in this new version of the manuscript. In my opinion, the revised manuscript meets the criteria and can be published as original paper in Journal of Xenobiotics.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have suitably addressed the comments.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the queries raised by the reviewer (s).
It is satisfactory and can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment
