Review on the Use of Magnetic Nanoparticles in the Detection of Environmental Pollutants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the article is "Review on the Use of Magnetic Nanoparticles in the Detection of Environmental Pollutants." The topic was good, but the authors failed to explain the detection processes. Instead of detection, the authors focused more on the removal of pollutants by magnetic nanoparticles. The authors mostly explain the adsorption process for different pollutants like dyes and pesticides. Most of the references were based on the removal of pollutants by magnetic nanoparticles. The article contains rich text that is meaningless. The following suggestions need to be incorporated to improve the manuscript: The article will be reconsidered for review after revisions.
Following techniques should be reviewed with combination of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs).
Colorimetric or optical technique
Fluorescence technique
Electrochemical detection
Spectrophotometric techniques
Use of nanoparticles in microfluidics devices
Detection of pathogens
Micro and nanofluidic applications
MNPs based biosensors and nanosensor
Imaging etc.
Comparison of analytical methods for various environmental samples should be incorporated in table format.
|
Type of MNPs |
Analyte or pollutant type |
Real Sample |
Analytical technique |
Recovery % |
LOD limit of detection |
References |
|
|
|
Water, Air, Soil or food |
|
|
|
|
It is important to include the principles and techniques for functionalizing MNPs, improving their stability, and strengthening their use in sensing.
Describe the mechanism of interaction between the MNPs and pollutants.
Challenges of magnetic nanomaterials for environmental pollutants detection.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Comment: The paper mentions that MNPs have excellent nano effects and magnetic properties, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what specific nano effects contribute to their efficiency in pollutant detection. Could you provide more details about how these intrinsic properties of MNPs enhance their performance in environmental contaminant detection?
- Drawback: While the paper highlights the advantages of MNPs in pollutant enrichment, it lacks a discussion on potential limitations or challenges that may arise during their application. Could you address any drawbacks or potential limitations of using MNPs for detecting pollutants in water and soil?
- Suggestion: The paper briefly mentions the preparation method and modification technology of magnetic nanoparticles, but it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive description with specific examples. Including some case studies or experimental results could help readers better understand the practical aspects of MNPs' preparation and modification. Please discuss following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.09.018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102958, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223615
- Question: The paper mentions the application prospect of magnetic nanoparticle composites in detecting contaminants in water and soil, but it would be interesting to know if there are any ongoing studies or practical implementations of these composites in real-world scenarios. Could you provide some examples of successful applications of MNPs in detecting pollutants in wastewater and soil environments?
- Comment: The paper emphasizes the eco-friendly aspect of biologically synthesized MNPs, which is indeed promising for sustainable development. However, it would be beneficial to discuss the challenges and potential limitations of biological synthesis methods, such as scalability, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness, compared to conventional chemical synthesis methods.
- Suggestion: The paper mentions that MNPs have good application prospects in soil pollution detection, but it lacks specific details about their potential applications in detecting organic and inorganic contaminants from wastewater. Including some case studies or comparative analyses of MNPs' performance in detecting different types of pollutants in both water and soil environments would enhance the depth of the review.
- Question: The paper mentions that some MNPs have shown high magnetic saturation reaching up to 70 emu/g, but it doesn't provide information about the significance of this value in the context of pollutant detection. Could you clarify how this high magnetic saturation affects the efficiency of pollutant enrichment and how it compares to other materials used for the same purpose?
- Comment: The paper mentions that MNPs have excellent nano effects and magnetic properties, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what specific nano effects contribute to their efficiency in pollutant detection. Could you provide more details about how these intrinsic properties of MNPs enhance their performance in environmental contaminant detection?
- Drawback: While the paper highlights the advantages of MNPs in pollutant enrichment, it lacks a discussion on potential limitations or challenges that may arise during their application. Could you address any drawbacks or potential limitations of using MNPs for detecting pollutants in water and soil?
- Suggestion: The paper briefly mentions the preparation method and modification technology of magnetic nanoparticles, but it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive description with specific examples. Including some case studies or experimental results could help readers better understand the practical aspects of MNPs' preparation and modification. Please discuss following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.09.018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102958, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223615
- Question: The paper mentions the application prospect of magnetic nanoparticle composites in detecting contaminants in water and soil, but it would be interesting to know if there are any ongoing studies or practical implementations of these composites in real-world scenarios. Could you provide some examples of successful applications of MNPs in detecting pollutants in wastewater and soil environments?
- Comment: The paper emphasizes the eco-friendly aspect of biologically synthesized MNPs, which is indeed promising for sustainable development. However, it would be beneficial to discuss the challenges and potential limitations of biological synthesis methods, such as scalability, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness, compared to conventional chemical synthesis methods.
- Suggestion: The paper mentions that MNPs have good application prospects in soil pollution detection, but it lacks specific details about their potential applications in detecting organic and inorganic contaminants from wastewater. Including some case studies or comparative analyses of MNPs' performance in detecting different types of pollutants in both water and soil environments would enhance the depth of the review.
- Question: The paper mentions that some MNPs have shown high magnetic saturation reaching up to 70 emu/g, but it doesn't provide information about the significance of this value in the context of pollutant detection. Could you clarify how this high magnetic saturation affects the efficiency of pollutant enrichment and how it compares to other materials used for the same purpose?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The current work focuses on a Review of the use of magnetic nanoparticles in the detection of environmental pollutants. The author’s some effort into the manuscript, but major issues should be addressed. Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Abstract
- Use of magnetic nanoparticles in the detection of environmental pollutants has been extensively studied. First, show the current review's novelty and importance and then the main outputs.
-Line 13, the first appearance of the abbreviation should have a full definition e.g. MNPs
Line 20-22, “Some MNPs have shown a magnetic saturation reaching up to 70 emu/g, and the enrichment 20 efficiency is still greater than 95% after five cycles. High pollutant enrichment efficiency (>98%) can 21 also be achieved in a short time (within 5 min) by MNPs.” All those specific properties are not mentioned in the text, so it is not required, delete it
INTRODUCTION
-Line 39-40, correct typo, magnetite (γ-Fe2O3)
-Line 78, correct typo, e.g. Fe(CO)5 and Fe(CUP)3
-Line 113, the first appearance of the abbreviation should have a full definition e.g. ELPs
-Line 151 first appearance of the abbreviation should have a full definition e.g. ZIF-67
-Line 181 first appearance of the abbreviation should have a full definition e.g. APABS
-Line 295, correct typo, Hg2+
-Line 56, the first appearance of abbreviation should have full definition e.g. CNKI
-Line 68-71, “In addition, there are many ways to prepare MNPs. Common preparation methods include co-precipitation method, microemulsion method, thermal degradation method, solvent hydrothermal method, ultrasonic chemistry method, microwave assisted method and bionic mineralization method. “
All those methods need citation:
Water 2023, 15, 1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091761
Soft Materials, 20:1, 35-44, DOI: 10.1080/1539445X.2021.1917425
-To avoid copy write issues, It should clarify the source of the two figures (Fig.1,2), are by the author or taken from references
-The magnetic materials will be applied for environmental applications, so toxicity is significant and should be cleared in a separate section.
-There is a felt lack of critical assessments by the authors. The authors did not mention the research gap between the previously reported articles and the present situation. Authors should incorporate their views in each subsection to mold the research in a new direction.
-Where are Future Perspectives and Conclusive Remarks!! It is very general information without information to the reader, rephrase it with specific points for Future Perspectives and Conclusive Remarks.
Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The response of the authors is very unsatisfactory, and I am against the publication of the manuscript in its current state.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
All issues are solved and the manuscript is accepted in the present form.
Moderate
