Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This work is very interesting and potentially useful from the bibliometric analysis of microplastics in soil environment. The literature review is written in great detail. This gives a comprehensive overview of microplastic pollution in soils and evaluate research trends in the future.

However, the data must be rewritten and presented with the corresponding statistical analysis, including in tables and/or figures, the statistically significant differences must be specified in results              and/or discussion.

I hope from the authors of this paper to exploit the following note in order to correct the          paper for the best form:

Comments from Reviewer:

1.     Improve the introduction part.

2.    The data must be rewritten and presented with the corresponding statistical analysis.

3.      It is necessary to minimize duplication (see the duplication report ).

4.    State the novelty of this work at the end of introduction.

5.     The conclusion section could be condensed to a take home message based on the findings in the study. Now a large part is also a summary which could be found in the abstract as well

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: Improve the introduction part.

 

Response 1: As suggested by the reviewer, we have rewritten the introduction part and marked it in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 2: The data must be rewritten and presented with the corresponding statistical analysis.

 

Response 2: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. About this question, we used Citespace software to carry out accurate literature statistics and analysis, the results were obtained by this software could not corresponding statistical analysis.

 

Point 3: It is necessary to minimize duplication (see the duplication report).

 

Response 3: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have rewritten some sentence and marked it in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 4: State the novelty of this work at the end of introduction.

 

Response 4: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added the novelty of this work at the end of introduction and marked it in red in the revised manuscript. The part of adding in the introduction as follows:

“Therefore, this paper discussed the development status of soil microplastics comprehensively and analyzed hotpots of soil microplastics furtherly. It is important to provide suggestions for future research directions.”

 

Point 5: The conclusion section could be condensed to a take home message based on the findings in the study. Now a large part is also a summary which could be found in the abstract as well.

 

Response 5: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. We reconsidered this part and decided to delete some sentence which could be found in the abstract after modifying the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript by T. Yang et al. summarises information on the development of the field of knowledge concerning environmental pollution by microplastics. This paper may be of interest to the Sustainability journal audience and deserves publication in its present form.

 

This research deals with the development of knowledge on microplastics pollution in the environment via a literature analysis. The paper discusses the main areas of research and suggests future trends in the field of microplasic pollution research. 

 

The study and its topic are highly relevant due to the fact that it summarises a wide range of knowledge related to: sampling and sample preparation of various environmental objects, the impact of microplastics on biota, the possibility of microplastics accumulation in environmental objects and the adsorption of pollutants by microplastic particles. 

 

It is desirable to transfer the images showing the networks on lines 139, 145, 163, 185, 306, 405 to the supplementary section, with improved image quality and size to make the material more understandable. It is also desirable to improve the labels on the images. 

 

Also, there are duplicate numbers in the conclusions.

 

Author Response

Point 1: It is desirable to transfer the images showing the networks on lines 139, 145, 163, 185, 306, 405 to the supplementary section, with improved image quality and size to make the material more understandable. It is also desirable to improve the labels on the images.

 

Response 1: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. About this question, the networks could show the connection of different nodes, we think that these figures in the manuscript may be better. Additionally, the CiteSpace (5.8 R2) can not use anymore, the labels on the figures could not be revised further regrettably.

 

Point 2: Also, there are duplicate numbers in the conclusions.

 

Response 2: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have deleted duplicate numbers in the conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have made significant effort to compile this review paper on microplastic pollution in soil. Few minor comments are suggested to be considered before acceptance:

Quality and font of figures need to be improved. 

A separate section is required for removal/remediation of microplastic from soil. Add future perspectives for future studies and remediation approaches. 

 

Author Response

Point 1: Quality and font of figures need to be improved.

 

Response 1: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. About this question, the CiteSpace (5.8 R2) can not use anymore, the figures and the labels on the figures could not be revised further regrettably.

 

Point 2: A separate section is required for removal/remediation of microplastic from soil. Add future perspectives for future studies and remediation approaches.

 

Response 2: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added this part and marked it in red in the revised manuscript. The part of adding in the discussion and conclusion as follows:

“In remediation of soil microplastic pollution, exploiting suitable remediation technology is one of the fundamental ways to solve the problem. Among them, bioremediation technology may be the best choice, which can be used to degrade microplastics by plants or microorganisms in soil system [49]. Some studies have shown that bacteria can degrade microplastics due to their natural ability to degrade long-chain fatty acids. For example, Park obtained a degraded strain to degrade microplastics by enzymatic chain scission [118]. However, the soil environment is very complex, not only require the single bioremediation technology, but also require complex degrade strains or technology [119]. For example, the soil can be contaminated by microplastics combined with heavy metals or pesticides. Therefore, it is important to study the remediation of complex contamination in the future.”

“And it is important to study the remediation of complex contamination in the future.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx