Advanced Applications of Carbonaceous Materials in Sustainable Water Treatment, Energy Storage, and CO2 Capture: A Comprehensive Review
, Shammya Afroze 4, Kairat Kuterbekov 4, Asset Kabyshev 4, Kenzhebatyr Zh. Bekmyrza 4,*, Md Naimul Haque 2, Shafi Noor Islam 5, Md Aslam Hossain 6, Mahbub Hassan 7, Hridoy Roy 8, Md Shahinoor Islam 8,9, Md Nahid Pervez 10 and Abul Kalam Azad 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article summarizes the application of carbonaceous materials in a variety of fields in a systematic and comprehensive way, which is instructive and forward-looking. The essay is well-structured and logically self-contained, summarizing the synthesis methods of activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, and graphene and their significant applications in energy storage, water treatment, and carbon dioxide gas capture, which are highly consistent with the topic of environmental sustainability. And the articles cited are of a high standard. I agree this manuscript is deserved to be published after a minor revision basing on the following considerations:
1. Pay more attention to the writing format and layout of the article. For example, there are problems with the layout of the formulas in line 204 and line 205.
2. There are some grammatical problems in this article, and the English should be improved. For example, the word ‘recyclable’ in line 124 should be changed into ‘recyclability’.
3. The aesthetics of the icons in the article needs to be improved, and some of the charts have text blocking and unclear pictures. For example, the images in Figure 4 are all very unclear.
4. There are many carbonaceous materials suitable for relevant applications, and the article needs to further explain why three materials, namely activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, and graphene, are chosen as representative materials for presentation.
5. The article clearly presents the applications of each of the three carbon materials in various environmentally sustainable fields, but lacks a cross-sectional comparison of the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of each of the three materials. Considerations about the focus of research directions should be given based on a comparison of material characteristics.
6. As an extremely informative review article, an outlook and summary only at the end of the article would not make the focus of the sections clear enough. It is suggested that the authors include a summary reflection after the introduction of the material synthesis and applications in each paragraph.
7. The authors are expected to cite the following relevant literature:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/12/22/4045/htm
Author Response
Comment: 1. Pay more attention to the writing format and layout of the article. For example, there are problems with the layout of the formulas in line 204 and line 205.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have the updated the format and layout of the article.
Comment: 2. There are some grammatical problems in this article, and the English should be improved. For example, the word ‘recyclable’ in line 124 should be changed into ‘recyclability’.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have the updated the article.
Comment: 3. The aesthetics of the icons in the article needs to be improved, and some of the charts have text blocking and unclear pictures. For example, the images in Figure 4 are all very unclear.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have improved the picture of the article.
Comment: 4. There are many carbonaceous materials suitable for relevant applications, and the article needs to further explain why three materials, namely activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, and graphene, are chosen as representative materials for presentation.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have explained these issue in the manuscript.
Comment: 5. The article clearly presents the applications of each of the three carbon materials in various environmentally sustainable fields, but lacks a cross-sectional comparison of the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of each of the three materials. Considerations about the focus of research directions should be given based on a comparison of material characteristics.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned these in recommendation section.
Comment: 6. As an extremely informative review article, an outlook and summary only at the end of the article would not make the focus of the sections clear enough. It is suggested that the authors include a summary reflection after the introduction of the material synthesis and applications in each paragraph.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the manuscript.
Comment: 7. The authors are expected to cite the following relevant literature:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/12/22/4045/htm
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have improved the picture of the article
Reviewer 2 Report
The review manuscript extensively studied the subject matter.
1). There is a typo in Figure 1, Y-axis title. Authors are requested to edit it accordingly.
2). The manuscript has multiple formatting errors. Please edit the manuscript while paying attention to formatting superscripts, subscripts, etc.
Author Response
Comment: 1). There is a typo in Figure 1, Y-axis title. Authors are requested to edit it accordingly.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised the Figure.
Comment: 2). The manuscript has multiple formatting errors. Please edit the manuscript while paying attention to formatting superscripts, subscripts, etc.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the whole manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment: The volume is large, and perhaps that is why there are repetitions of abbreviations For example, "CNTs" lines 71 and 145
“MWCTNs” - lines 75, 87, 277, 681
“SWCTNs” - lines 75, 85, 281
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised the abbreviations.
Comment: There are abbreviations that have been introduced, but are not used anywhere else in the text: IPCC (line 132) and GHG (line 135).
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised the abbreviations.
Comment: There are also parts of the text that say the same thing and almost the same words. For example:
«Generally, three main procedures are used to produce MWCNTs and SWCNTs: arc discharge, laser- ablation, and catalytic growth (Figure 6) [66] »
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated this portion.
Comment: And in the same place:
The current and most known methods that are used to synthesize CNTs include Electrolysis, Chemical vapor deposition (CVD), Mechano-thermal, Laser ablation, Flame Synthesis, and Arc discharge (Figure 6). (lines 290 and 292).
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated this portion.
Comment: In Tables 1, 6 and S1, to compare the adsorption capacities of AC and GO, it would be good to give the specific surfaces of adsorbents, as was done for Table 2.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have included the column of surface areas.
Comment: Table S1 shows the physical quantity q (mg/g), which is not deciphered anywhere.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned it the Table.
Comment: Table 8 shows the different units of capacity measurement. There is a “condition” parameter in
table 8. Conditions of what? What do these conditions apply to?
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have update the information.
Comment: There is no uniformity of dimension notation in the text, for example, you can find both: F g-1 and F/g, moll g-1 and mmol/g, m2/g and m2 g-1
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned the uniformity in notations.
Comment: For easier perception of the information, I recommend rearranging: Table 1 by the type of sorbed dye; tables 6 and 7 - by adsorbate; table S1 - by electrolyte/
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have rearranged the table.
Comment: Is there a difference between the ways of activating biomass? Or does the value of the specific surface area depend on the biomaterial raw materials used?
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have clarified in the manuscript.
Comment: At the end of the sections, I would like to see mini conclusions, for example, which of the carbon materials are better in water and air purification, and which are more attractive in the field of energy storage (taking into account the cost of obtaining carbon materials)
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned it in the conclusion section.
Comment: It seems to me that the part of the comparison of the carbon materials properties in the energy storage field deserves a separate review.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
In the introductory part, when you already described everything, starting with carbon materials, nanotubes and graphene, you could also describe fullerenes.
You stated that nanotubes are the best for CO2 storage, you did not state that active carbon materials are the best for this application when CCS (carbon, capture, storage) is applied.
Also, in the introductory part, you did not mention that carbon nanotubes have one of the main functions of being carriers, for example of medicines.
Paragraph 106 - 125, where it is about void, modify it and specifically include the materials you deal with in this paper. Provide adequate references.
Paragraph 128-136 should be described better and more comprehensively
Paragraph 210, picture 5, for block seeds A and B, the second step, drying, washing and grinding... All this can be done before carbonization and activation, which is sometimes more desirable, and granulation can also be done in addition to all that.
Paragraph 227, primarily inert gas is used, nitrogen, maybe argon, for carbonation. For the activation of CO2 and water vapor (more for commercial use), CO can also be used, but it is quite toxic, so it is avoided, but the characteristics of the obtained material are outstanding.
Paragraph 2.1.2. Various salts can be used.
Paragraph 2.2.2 Carbon materials other than CNT can be produced by the CVD method
Paragraph 481. Compare with another country other than the USA, some African country or somewhere with polluted waters
Change the title of table 1.
Better to connect the properties of carbon materials with water removal, porosity, distribution and pore volume as well as functional groups.
In Table 1, you could have given an example with Methylene orange, and in the group of heavy metals another heavy metal or pollutant such as Iron or Arsenic.
Connect Sbet AND Qm
Paragraph 4.1. And 4.2 better and more concisely explained
Where is the comparison table for AC as a supercapacitor?
Table 10. Must be with more precursors and active agents
Also a table for graphenes how they remove CO2
You listed a lot of results and summarized other works. If you have decided to do a show work. You could have mentioned some of your research results and compared them with others.
A better description of the results from the tables is missing.
I also think that there is a lack of comparative tables with material properties, how they change and how they affect the application. Some conclusion should be drawn for the optimization of the process parameter.
I suggest a major revision. If you answer my questions, suggestions and proposals adequately, your work can be accepted in the journal
Author Response
Comment: In the introductory part, when you already described everything, starting with carbon materials, nanotubes and graphene, you could also describe fullerenes.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have described fullerenes.
Comment: You stated that nanotubes are the best for CO2 storage, you did not state that active carbon materials are the best for this application when CCS (carbon, capture, storage) is applied.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned the CCS for activated carbon.
Comment: Also, in the introductory part, you did not mention that carbon nanotubes have one of the main functions of being carriers, for example of medicines.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned it in the introduction portion.
Comment: Paragraph 106 - 125, where it is about void, modify it and specifically include the materials you deal with in this paper. Provide adequate references.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised the paragraphs.
Comment: Paragraph 128-136 should be described better and more comprehensively
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have described this paragraph comprehensively.
Comment: Paragraph 210, picture 5, for block seeds A and B, the second step, drying, washing and grinding... All this can be done before carbonization and activation, which is sometimes more desirable, and granulation can also be done in addition to all that.
Response: As this diagram we found in other article we used it with reference.
Comment: Paragraph 227, primarily inert gas is used, nitrogen, maybe argon, for carbonation. For the activation of CO2 and water vapor (more for commercial use), CO can also be used, but it is quite toxic, so it is avoided, but the characteristics of the obtained material are outstanding.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned it in the manuscript.
Comment: Paragraph 2.1.2. Various salts can be used.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised this section.
Comment: Paragraph 2.2.2 Carbon materials other than CNT can be produced by the CVD method
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised this section.
Comment: Paragraph 481. Compare with another country other than the USA, some African country or somewhere with polluted waters
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have revised this section.
Comment: Change the title of table 1.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have changed the title of Table 1.
Comment: Better to connect the properties of carbon materials with water removal, porosity, distribution and pore volume as well as functional groups.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have update the manuscript.
Comment: In Table 1, you could have given an example with Methylene orange, and in the group of heavy metals another heavy metal or pollutant such as Iron or Arsenic.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have modified Table 1.
Comment: Connect Sbet AND Qm
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned the Sbet.
Comment: Paragraph 4.1. And 4.2 better and more concisely explained
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have explained these paragraph concisely.
Comment: Where is the comparison table for AC as a supercapacitor?
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have mentioned in Table S3
Comment: Table 10. Must be with more precursors and active agents
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the table
Comment: Also a table for graphenes how they remove CO2
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the table
Comment: You listed a lot of results and summarized other works. If you have decided to do a show work. You could have mentioned some of your research results and compared them with others.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the manuscript.
Comment: A better description of the results from the tables is missing.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the manuscript.
Comment: I also think that there is a lack of comparative tables with material properties, how they change and how they affect the application. Some conclusion should be drawn for the optimization of the process parameter.
Response: According to the suggestion of the reviewer we have updated the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
you adequately responded to my remarks and suggestions. Because of all this, I give a positive opinion that your work is accepted in the journal.
best regards
