An Overview of Micro(Nano)Plastics in the Environment: Sampling, Identification, Risk Assessment and Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Acceptable
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Acceptable
Response:
We are grateful for the time and effort the editors and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback for our manuscript. We also appreciate the reviewer's acceptance of our work.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments:
The manuscript entitled “Characteristics of micro(nano)plastics in the environment: sampling, pretreatment, identification, health risk and control – A review” has many grammatical issues that need to be corrected. The authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly. In addition, this manuscript has some ambiguous statements which do not fully depict the information provided. I suggest the following changes and improvements:
1. The title should be concise and revised considering the useful keywords to catch the prospective reader's attention.
2. Line 5: and b…..??
3. Urban sprawl and swift transportation infrastructure have intensified the micro(nano)plastics and an environmental and……….. rephrase the sentence for better clarity.
4. Additionally, because these solutions can break down……. rewrite and also eliminate grammatical errors.
5. The author should revise the abstract section considering the key findings of the review.
6. Authours need to proofread the manuscript carefully and eliminate space issues i.e. (2)(Date up to), (sartorius,polycarbonate), (t al., 2017)as), (al., 2017).Once), etc.
7. In Fig.2: tio2 change to TiO2
8. The abbreviation of PET should be mentioned in the manuscript. Additionally, explain all abbreviations when they appear in the manuscript for the first time
9. Page 2, Line 27: phytoplankon check the spelling.
10. Page 19: Change & to and.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
The manuscript entitled “Characteristics of micro(nano)plastics in the environment: sampling, pretreatment, identification, health risk and control – A review” has many grammatical issues that need to be corrected. The authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly. In addition, this manuscript has some ambiguous statements which do not fully depict the information provided. I suggest the following changes and improvements:
Response:
We are thankful to the reviewer for the critical analysis of our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript and incorporated all comments of the reviewer. We hope it will be acceptable for the reviewer now.
Comment 1:
The title should be concise and revised considering the useful keywords to catch the prospective reader's attention.
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title, and the new title is: An Overview of micro(nano)plastics in the Environment: sampling, identification, risk assessment and control.
Comment 2:
Line 5: and b…..??
Response:
Thank you for your comment. It was typo we have corrected it.
Comment 3:
Urban sprawl and swift transportation infrastructure have intensified the micro(nano)plastics and an environmental and……….. rephrase the sentence for better clarity.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. We have revised it: "Advances in urban infrastructure, a flourishing polymer sector, and more traffic have all contributed to a rise in micro(nano)plastics in the Environment. Researchers are exploring the production, fate, toxicity threshold, and severity of micro(nano)plastic exposure.”
Comment 4:
Additionally, because these solutions can break down……. rewrite and also eliminate grammatical errors.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We have revised it as “These methods often only cover one type of plastic. These solutions can transform polymers into micro(nano)plastics, which increases the risk of environmental contamination”.
Comment 5:
The author should revise the abstract section considering the key findings of the review.
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion; we have revised the abstract and included the main findings of the review in the abstract briefly.
Comment 6:
Authours need to proofread the manuscript carefully and eliminate space issues i.e. (2)(Date up to), (sartorius,polycarbonate), (t al., 2017)as), (al., 2017).Once), etc.
Response:
Thank you for identifying these mistakes. We have revised the manuscript and have eliminated all similar issues.
Comment 7:
In Fig.2: tio2 change to TiO2
Response:
Thank you. We have corrected it.
Comment 8:
The abbreviation of PET should be mentioned in the manuscript. Additionally, explain all abbreviations when they appear in the manuscript for the first time
Response:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have included the full name of PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) and all others at their corresponding first place.
Comment 9:
Page 2, Line 27: phytoplankon check the spelling.
Response:
Thank you. It is phytoplankton. We have corrected it.
Comment 10:
Page 19: Change & to and.
Response:
Thank you. We have corrected it.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The followings are the comments/suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
2.2 statistical Analysis equation reference is not given
Reference number 10 is not present in the material and method section
In results, section Results can also be evaluated on age category for a better understanding of public awareness
Because in parks more children or women must be present rather than younger people, also should highlight sensitive age groups.
Summarize the effect of PM on the number of visitors on working days vs weekends (if possible).
Writing manuscripts with high-quality English language is important from the reader's point of view. Therefore, it is suggested to have the article checked for English language and grammatical errors.
The use of capital letters in the subject and subtopic is inconsistent.
Figure 2. Axis labels are too small to be visible.
Conclusions need to be clear and reflect the importance and highlights of the research.
The discussion section is very well covered.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
The followings are the comments/suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and have removed all mistakes. We are grateful to the reviewer for helping us to improve our work. Following your suggestion made changes and incorporated your comments.
Comment 1:
2.2 statistical Analysis equation reference is not given
Response:
We are sorry, this is a review paper, and we did not perform any statistical evaluation on the literature. So We did not change anything on this suggestion.
Comment 2:
Reference number 10 is not present in the material and method section
Response:
Sorry, we did not find related information in our work.
Comment 3:
In results, section Results can also be evaluated on age category for a better understanding of public awareness
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. We have tried to discuss the MPs toxicity in the context of different age groups in the corresponding location in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4:
Because in parks more children or women must be present rather than younger people, also should highlight sensitive age groups.
Response:
Thank you for providing this information. Yes, we acknowledge that children are more vulnerable to MPs in playgrounds. We have included it.
Comment 5:
Summarize the effect of PM on the number of visitors on working days vs weekends (if possible).
Response:
Thank you for your comments and suggestion. Since this is a review paper and it is based on the available literature. No such study is available that discusses microplastic effects based on visitors or working and weekend days. However, we have recommended the different related prospective studies in the conclusion and future studies section.
Comment 6:
Writing manuscripts with high-quality English language is important from the reader's point of view. Therefore, it is suggested to have the article checked for English language and grammatical errors.
Response:
Thank you suggestion. We have critically reviewed this manuscript and have removed all mistakes. We hope the revised version of the manuscript will be accepted.
Comment 7:
The use of capital letters in the subject and subtopic is inconsistent.
Response:
Thank you for the correction. We have revised it and made it consistent.
Comment 8:
Figure 2. Axis labels are too small to be visible.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. We have revised Figure 2.
Comment 9:
Conclusions need to be clear and reflect the importance and highlights of the research.
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the conclusion section and made it clearer and more informative by adding important literature highlights.
Comment 10:
The discussion section is very well covered.
Response:
Thank you for your compliments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This MS-Review is dealing with the very important topic of the environmental fate of micro(nano)plastics. Although the subject is important and should be elaborated in the form of the review, I found this MS presented with insufficient English. Therefore, a minor revision and thorough English checking is necessary. Specific comments are given below. If authors adequately answer all questions, revised MS can be published.
Specific comments:
Page 4, line 33 - in vitro in italic
Page 6, line 16 - why the company Sartorius is mentioned?
Page 7, table 1 - Preservation, NOT reservation
Page 8, lines 80, 85, 104 - not understandable, check English
Page 12, paragraph 3.4 - why the company Whatman is mentioned?
Page 12, lines 213-214 - “(i.e., single samples collected at one time)” - what does it mean?
Page 14, lines 298-299 - English!
Page 17, lines 99-100 - English!
Page 18, lines 106 and 118 - unnecessarily repeated sentences and references.
Page 18, lines 131-143 - not understandable?
Page 19, lines 189-193 - not understandable?
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, I do not find that a review of the “Characteristics of micro(nano)plastics in the environment…” with a specific focus on degradation of nano- and microplastic is very interesting. I, also find that many of the references cited are from before 2018 and is means that it cannot be considered to be up-to-date. Finally, the method for completing the review is not very clear and it is not clear how the conclusions were derived.
Specifically:
· I do not believe that the abstract is very good. It should be clear how the review of the literature was performed; how studies were identified and evaluated. I would suggest that he authors follow the IMRAD-model and make it clear h why they did the review, how they identified studied, how the analyzed them, what they concluded based on them and alike.
· I do not get figure 1 and 2. What do they illustrate and how am I do interpret them?
· Seems that the search result that are illustrated in fig.2 only reflect a search performed on “nanoparticles” and not microplastics despite the heading of the paper focusing on both.
· I do not understand how the text written in line 15-46, can lead to it being relevant to complete the envisioned work, which is: “This work intends to provide detailed insight into recent advancements in micro and nano plastics characteristics, including sampling, identification, and handling”.
· The review first reviews “2. Overall introduction on techniques for MPs and NPs measurement”; “3. Techniques for MPs and NPs measurement in various matrices” and “4. Accumulation and Translocation of MPs in the Human Body”. Overall, section 2-4 seems to be very descriptive and does not really add any insight across the studies reviewed. The section on 5.2. Governmental policies and nongovernmental campaigns to curb MPs pollution leads to a seemingly second review of biological control and degradation possibilities of nano- and microplastics. It is not clear why this is relevant.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
The manuscript entitled “Characteristics of micro(nano)plastics in the environment: sam-pling, pretreatment, identification, health risk and control — A review” has so many grammatical and space errors that need to be corrected. Authors need to proofread the article thoroughly. In addition, this article has some ambiguous statements which do not fully depict the information provided. I suggest the following changes and improvements:
1. Line 18-22: Sentence need rephrasing.
2. Line 25-27: The last sentence of the abstract needs to be revised.
3. Line 16-17: What are the hurdles for the natural degradation of MPs?
4. Author should add a figure on the global production of plastics.
5. The quality of Figure 1 needs to be improved.
6. Line 28-29: Refer to this article https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00216.
7. All used abbreviations should be pronounced such as NOAA.
8. The author should add the latest articles on different extraction methods. Moreover, table 4 is not clear enough. It will be better if the author mentioned biological species, then their separation method following parameters and advantages.
9. Section 6 should be revised as there are many other degradation methods you need to mention. Refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105964 and https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00216.
10. Add a little more discussion on future prospects.
