Efficient Removal of Cadmium (II) and Arsenic (V) from Water by the Composite of Iron Manganese Oxides Loaded Muscovite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article meets the requirements; There are no fundamental comments on the content and design.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments

Manuscript ID: water-2625556

Title: Efficient removal of cadmium (II) and arsenic (V) from water by the composite of iron manganese oxides loaded muscovite

This study introduces a new adsorbent called FMM, made from waste muscovite, for removing Cd(II) and As(V) from contaminated wastewater. FMM demonstrated high adsorption capacities for Cd(II) and As(V) due to increased surface area and pore volume. The adsorption process followed pseudo-first-order and pseudo-second-order models. As(V) removal involved chemical, electrostatic, and covalent bond adsorption, while Cd(II) removal relied on electrostatic adsorption and surface precipitation. FMM shows promise for effectively treating Cd and As contaminated wastewater and utilizing waste muscovite as a resource. The work scope is relatively interesting but not up to the mark. Therefore, it is not possible to accept it in its current form. I recommend accepting this paper for publication after attending to the following concerns.

Recommendation: Major revision

1.      There are too many typographical errors. Please rectify the whole manuscript

2.      Explain why the adsorption method is superior to the other removal methods

3.      The authors need to re-write the abstract. It is not impressive so improvise the abstract with major outputs and core content.

4.      Please include the real sample analysis for the prepared material.

5.      A self-explanatory graphical abstract can be provided as it can increase the attention of the readers at first glance.

6.      The introduction section needs to be improvised with a solid foundation. Write a short review on the heavy metals that are toxic in nature and threaten humans. Refer to the papers: Toxics 2023, 11(6), 545; Dalton Trans. 2020, 49(42), 15061-15071; Sens. Actuator A Phys. 2023, 354, 114094; Inorganica Chim. Acta 2020, 506, 119564

7.      In all sections, the manuscript presents mostly the results but not an adequate discussion on how and why. The manuscript can be further improved by including more in-depth discussions.

8.      The language in the whole manuscript needs to be improved. Revise the manuscript from top to bottom.

English is fine but it needs minor improvements

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. While the study reports significant improvement in adsorption capacity for Cd(II) and As(V) compared to muscovite, the values mentioned (32.47 mg/g and 28.57 mg/g) should be considered in the context of real-world wastewater concentrations, which can vary widely.
2. The study mentions an increase in specific surface area and pore volume after modification, but it does not provide quantitative data or characterization techniques used to confirm these improvements. Providing such details would strengthen the study's credibility.
3. The proposed mechanisms for Cd(II) and As(V) removal are mentioned, but they lack experimental evidence or confirmation. Detailed studies or experiments supporting these proposed mechanisms would enhance the scientific rigor of the research.
4. The study does not provide a direct comparison between FMM and other commonly used adsorbents for Cd(II) and As(V) removal. Comparative data would help assess the effectiveness of FMM in relation to existing solutions.
5. The study does not explore the influence of various operating conditions (e.g., pH, contact time, initial concentration) on adsorption efficiency. Understanding the optimal conditions for FMM would be valuable for practical applications.
6. There is no mention of whether FMM can be regenerated and reused for multiple cycles. Assessing the regenerative potential of the adsorbent is important for its long-term sustainability.
7. The study discusses the resource utilization of waste muscovite but does not address the practical challenges and considerations of implementing FMM in real-world wastewater treatment scenarios, such as scalability and cost-effectiveness.
8. The study does not touch upon the environmental impact of FMM production or disposal. An assessment of the environmental footprint of this material would provide a more holistic view.
9. The study should consider sharing the dataset, especially if it includes experimental results, to promote transparency and enable other researchers to validate the findings.
10. The study could benefit from suggesting future research directions, such as pilot-scale testing or field applications, to bridge the gap between laboratory experiments and practical use.

Quality of English Language is OK

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the concerns. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript to accepted for publication