Microplastics’ and Nanoplastics’ Interactions with Microorganisms: A Bibliometric Study
, Domingo Cesar Carrascal-Hernández 1, Jorge Trilleras 2, Katelediana Mora 3 and Victoria A. Arana 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a review paper on microplastics interaction with microorganisms, primarily through bibliometric study of published papers and meta-analysis of the results on the possibilities of degradation of microplastics by microorganisms. The publications were analyzed in detail and the results from bibliometric studies are clearly presented (with some exceptions listed in specific comments)
The second part of the paper includes an overview of the potential of different microorganisms in the degradation of microplastics. The authors gave a comprehensive overview of previous publications and their results, and since it is a review article, I would expect the authors to clearly point out what is missing. This would significantly facilitate the work of other researchers. Also, in the conclusions, gaps in current knowledge should be more clearly defined. A sentence like L702-L707 is too general and does not give enough information other researchers.
I find that the quality of the manuscript would be significantly improved if the authors would clearly identify gaps in current knowledge and pinpoint to further research that is needed.
Some specific comments are listed below:
Figure 1.
Exponential fit formula y=0e^0.57772x written this way actually yields y=0! Probably the coefficient value is very small, but this should be corrected.
What is the purpose of this linear trend? Basically, almost every function in some range can be fitted to linear trend, and I am sure that for example, in period between 2010. and 2015. trend would also be linear, but the slope would be significantly smaller, thus yielding completely wrong prediction on the numbers of expected publications.
Fig 7. Cannot be seen in the text.
Author Response
We appreciate the effort from the reviewer to read and evaluate our work. All the suggestions were valuable for improving the quality of the manuscript and comprehension. Therefore, we answered all the tips point by point, as seen in the attached version of the answer letter and the corrected version of the manuscript. All the changes were highlighted in blue for better identification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well-conducted and the information is of interest. However, there are some issues that needs correction:
Figure 7: where is this figure? I can't spot the figure.
The titles of the figures is not correct. Figure 7 is duplicate.
Lines 596, 604, 633, 666....: The references are not in the journals format. Please, check the whole manuscript.
Figure 8, but in the text you are mentioned the figure 9. Please, check all the figures titles and in the text.
Author Response
We appreciate the effort from the reviewer to read and evaluate our work. All the suggestions were valuable for improving the quality of the manuscript and comprehension. Therefore, we answered all the tips point by point, as seen in the attached answer letter and the corrected manuscript version. All the changes were highlighted in blue for better identification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The advantages and disadvantages of this manuscript are equally significant. Its theme is appealing, and the work of the authors is valuable. But there are a lot of problems in the manuscript, and major revisions is needed. I recommend that the journal reconsider the publication of this manuscript after the revisions.
1. No doubt readers would prefer to see the authors' conclusions and perspectives in the abstract.
2. Keywords are best used to avoid using phrases to facilitate search on the WOS or Google scholar.
3. I suggest using the review papers to replace case studies as the references, such as:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158745
10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117999
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126843
10.1080/10643389.2019.1631990
4. Given the rapid growth in the number of microplastics literature, updating the 2022 published papers to this review is a good choice
5. Are there source countries for statistical studies necessary? This could be done with a review of occurrence and distribution, but is the mechanism study related to the country?
6. Please confirm that all cited images in this manuscript are authorized.
7. I don't think figure 9 is informative.
8. Conclusion doesn't highlight the value it deserves, and I recommend thorough rewriting, while Perspectives is essential for the review
Author Response
We appreciate the effort from the reviewer to read and evaluate our work. All the suggestions were valuable for improving the quality of the manuscript and comprehension. Therefore, we answered all the tips point by point, as seen in the attached answer letter and the corrected manuscript version. All the changes were highlighted in blue for better identification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
None.
