Micro- and Nano-Plastics Contaminants in the Environment: Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, Remediation, and Sustainable Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comment:

This review article entitled “Micro- and Nano-Plastics Contaminants in the Environment:  Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, Remediation, and Sustainable Perspectives” by Rashed and co-authors deals with the various types of Micro- and Nano-Plastics, their sources, fate, toxicity, and impact on human health and environment. In general, the review article is interesting and suitable for publication in the MDPI Water journal pending suitable moderate revisions. My specific comments are:

1.      In the abstract, please indicate the method of literature review about micro and nano-plastic pollutants, how many articles from which database, and the timeframe were reviewed?

2.      Keywords are too lengthy and should be changed so as not to overlap title words.

3.      Line 42: will reach 368 million metric tons in 2019? I would like to inform you that 2019 already passed four years ago. Why do authors use such outdated statements, copied from any source?

4.      Provide chemical characteristics of micro and nano-plastics about their persistent nature and why they are harmful to the environment including humans and plants.

5.      Line 53: name the polymers.

6.      Provide a separate section about the methodology adopted for the literature survey as per comment 1. The article should provide more insight into the primary data sources used for the review. It's crucial to establish the quality and reliability of the studies included in the analysis.

7.      Table 1-8: name the authors with reference number.

8.      The article touches on sustainable perspectives but does not provide concrete recommendations or insights into how societies and industries can transition to more sustainable practices. This section could be more actionable.

Author Response

Thank for your valuable comments. We have made the requested additions, which are highlighted in red color. 

With regard to point no. 7, we follow journal table style.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I find that the Review entitled: "Micro- and Nano-plastics contaminants in the environment: Sources, fate, toxicity, detection, remediation, and sustainable perspectives" is a very interesting. The continuous production and widespread applications of synthetic plastics and their waste present immense environmental challenges and damage living systems. Microplastics (MPs) have become of great concern in various environmental ecosystems due to their high stability and decomposition into smaller fragments (e.g., nano-plastics (NPs)). Moreover, organic and inorganic pollutants can be adsorbed onto MPs and NPs; and end up in polluted areas. Nevertheless, MPs and NPs can be removed from the environment using several physical, chemical, and microbiological methods.

In this Review, the authors presented the researchers' efforts to explain a comprehensive narrative literature review, which aims to explore the various types of MPs and NPs, their sources, fate, toxicity, and impact on human health and environment. In addition, this Review summarizes various methods of sample collection and analysis techniques. Remediation strategies for MPs and NPs removal are assessed and compared. Furthermore, it highlights interlinkages between the sustainable development goals (SDGs) -specifically SDG 14- and plastic pollution.

Additionally, this Review summarizes progress focuses on priority for research and development in the field of MPs and NPs impacts on ecological ecosystems. Moreover, it is important to develop policies based on science and driven by global coordination, collaboration, and governance through developing tools and methodologies that measure the impacts and menace of plastic pollution.

I think that the Authors have provided researchers with enough information through the presentation of the Review, that they can despite the huge challenges ahead, with sufficient effort is possible to successfully develop techniques and methods that analyze, identify, and monitor MPs and NPs sources across all the environmental components including soil, water, food, and other consumption products.

Accordingly, I recommend Accept in present form.

 

Author Response

Highly appreciate your support and acceptance of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Micro- and Nano-Plastics Contaminants in the Environment: Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, Remediation, and Sustainable Perspectives

 

Summary: The continuous production and widespread applications of synthetic plastics and their waste present immense environmental challenges and damage living systems. Overall, priority for research and development in the field of MPs and NPs impacts on ecological ecosystems is a must as this will enable the development of scientific polices driven by global collaboration and governance which in turn will develop tools and methodologies that measure the impacts and risk of plastic pollution. The preset article is well constructed and supported with the relevant numerate references. Following are minor suggestions for further enhancements.

 

Review comments:

1.     Title: Acceptable.

2.     Abstract: This can be enhanced more to display the summary of present review. The novelty of the work can be highlighted.

3.     Introduction: Can be elaborated to adhere with the title. Few research gaps need to be fulfilled. The novelty needs to be highlighted.

4.     Previously published literature might be helpful for enhancements such as; Green revolution to protect environment–an identification of potential micro algae for the biodegradation of plastic waste in Malaysia; and; Evaluation of Microalgae’s Plastic Biodeterioration Property by a Consortium of Chlorella sp. and Cyanobacteria sp. 

5.     I suggest authors they could include a graphical abstract might be more efficient in attracting readers.

6.     Line 226, please check the title after the full stop.

7.     Is the authors want to include the degradation methods? Or can be skipped for future review.

8.     In Future prospective and recommendations, the authors separate in many paragraphs that can be combined together.

9.     In the references section, please check the first 4 references the numbering is hanging.

10.  The grammatical and typo errors need to be checked and corrected.

The grammatical and typo errors need to be checked and corrected.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the requested additions, which are highlighted in red color.

With regard to the point no. 5, we submitted the graphical abstract along with manuscript. And point no. 7 is covered in section 8.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx