Synthesis and Characterization of Nanometal Oxide-Biochar Derived from Date Palm Waste for Adsorption of Manganese and Iron from Contaminated Water
, Muhammad Tariq Bashir 2,*, Muhammad Ali Sikandar 2, Md. Munir Hayet Khan 3, Bandar Alwushayh 1, Ahmed Ghazy 4, Md. Alhaz Uddin 1 and Javed Iqbal 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Biochar and nanometal oxide-biochar were synthesized and used for Mn and Fe ion adsorption in this study. There is no clear indication of the novelty of the work. There are several issues that should be addressed in the paper, which is weakly prepared. So, I think it needs to be greatly improved, according to the following comments:
-The novelty of the work is unclear. According to the literature review, it must be highlighted.
-Recently published studies can be considered in the introduction section, such as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01647-6; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138241
-Discussion on the FTIR spectrum should be improved
-The quality of figures, in particular Figure 3, needs to be improved
-The title of section 3.2.1 should be revised? the effect of pH on what? also other section titles should be improved.
-Fe and Mn are not correct. They should be revised in their entirety. Mn and Fe ions, nanoparticles, .?
-What is the pHpzc of biochar?
-pH effects are explained in the form of a report. According to the surface charges and the competition between ions, it should be discussed
-In the figure captions, experimental conditions should be included
-The X-axis are provided in Figure 4. Also, the quality of the figures is low.
-There is no reliability in the isotherm study. Isotherm study in just 2!! or 3 points is not correct (see Figure 8). It needs at least 8 points to reach a plateau trend.
-What is the main cause of the difference in the adsorption behavior of biochar toward Mn and Fe ions?
-How reusable is the adsorbent?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We value your input and have addressed all the comments, incorporated them in the paper as well, and highlighted them for your convenience. A detailed response has been uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is very interesting and valuable, but requires correction:
1. The preliminary drawing at the beginning illustrating the mechanism of phosphate sorption is unclear and requires improvement.
2. The phosphate sorption isotherm should be prepared for a larger number of concentrations, i.e. 10 points. Different models should be used to evaluate the isotherm, i.e. Languir-Freundlich, Dubinin-Raduskevich model
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We value your input and have addressed all the comments, incorporated them in the paper as well, and highlighted them for your convenience. A detailed response has been uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The majority of inquiries have been answered well, and the paper has been improved.
