Nutrient Removal from Aqueous Solutions Using Biosorbents Derived from Rice and Corn Husk Residues: A Systematic Review from the Environmental Management Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find that the Review entitled: "Nutrient removal from aqueous solutions using bioadsorbents derived from rice and corn husk residues: a systematic review from the environmental management perspective" is a very interesting.

This review critically analyzed the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. Review highlighted the use of such adsorbents in wastewater treatment. Novel approaches for sustainable nutrient removal from aqueous solutions were identified. A comprehensive understanding of the implementation of adsorption processes using agroindustrial residues based on corn and rice crops is critical for the sustainable management of residues and water bodies in the world to protect and conserve natural resources. Specifically, the review focuses on the exploration, preparation and application of innovative adsorbents to remove various forms of nutrients such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrates, ammonium and phosphates from aqueous solution, analyzing the sustainability of treatments applied to biomass, such as thermal transformation or chemical modification to reduce environmental impacts were analyzed. Various methods of eliminating and recovering such contaminants were investigated from technical, economic, and environmental sustainability perspectives. Research opportunities were identified, such as the recovery of removed nutrients for soil improvement, life cycle analysis to assess the concept of zero waste, among other aspects. A scheme is proposed for the selection and application of sustainable bioadsorbents for the removal of nutrients from aqueous solutions. Finally, research opportunities were identified to cover gaps in knowledge to propose projects for low-cost WWTPs that include adsorption with agroindustrial residues for the purification and recovery of nutrients from wastewater, which could be applied in all countries to sustainably manage global water resources.

Nevertheless, several challenges and benefits require technological and scientific development for an effective application of the use of natural adsorbents (e.g., rice and corn waste), such as obtaining low-cost adsorbents, taking advantage of the abundance of these materials, easy preparation, reuse in water treatment and other media (such as soil), useful life, and recovery of wastewater materials, to maximize the environmental and social benefits of the application of these novel materials (adsorbents) for water decontamination. All of the above represents a challenge and gives guidelines to the authors for further research.

I please the authors to only uniformly and technically correct the order of references according to their appearance in the manuscript.

Accordingly, I recommend Accept after minor revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find that the Review entitled: "Nutrient removal from aqueous solutions using bioadsorbents derived from rice and corn husk residues: a systematic review from the environmental management perspective" is a very interesting.

This review critically analyzed the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. Review highlighted the use of such adsorbents in wastewater treatment. Novel approaches for sustainable nutrient removal from aqueous solutions were identified. A comprehensive understanding of the implementation of adsorption processes using agroindustrial residues based on corn and rice crops is critical for the sustainable management of residues and water bodies in the world to protect and conserve natural resources. Specifically, the review focuses on the exploration, preparation and application of innovative adsorbents to remove various forms of nutrients such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrates, ammonium and phosphates from aqueous solution, analyzing the sustainability of treatments applied to biomass, such as thermal transformation or chemical modification to reduce environmental impacts were analyzed. Various methods of eliminating and recovering such contaminants were investigated from technical, economic, and environmental sustainability perspectives. Research opportunities were identified, such as the recovery of removed nutrients for soil improvement, life cycle analysis to assess the concept of zero waste, among other aspects. A scheme is proposed for the selection and application of sustainable bioadsorbents for the removal of nutrients from aqueous solutions. Finally, research opportunities were identified to cover gaps in knowledge to propose projects for low-cost WWTPs that include adsorption with agroindustrial residues for the purification and recovery of nutrients from wastewater, which could be applied in all countries to sustainably manage global water resources.

Nevertheless, several challenges and benefits require technological and scientific development for an effective application of the use of natural adsorbents (e.g., rice and corn waste), such as obtaining low-cost adsorbents, taking advantage of the abundance of these materials, easy preparation, reuse in water treatment and other media (such as soil), useful life, and recovery of wastewater materials, to maximize the environmental and social benefits of the application of these novel materials (adsorbents) for water decontamination. All of the above represents a challenge and gives guidelines to the authors for further research.

I please the authors to only uniformly and technically correct the order of references according to their appearance in the manuscript.

Accordingly, I recommend Accept after minor revision.

Response 1: References were adjusted in the manuscript according to recommendations. Thanks for the recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 27 - for consistency, use the word biosorbents throughout the manuscript, not adsorbent or bioadsorbent. Also, use the word biosorption instead of adsorption.

Lines 80-84 - The authors need to mention the concentration of phenol tested in those studies.

Line 142 - Why did the authors not use the keyword 'biosorption'? This word is also widely used.   

Tables 2-3 - Authors are required to include the adsorption capacity values (mg/g) for each reported biosorbent. One of the important information in the biosorption study is the type of interaction (mechanism) between biosorbate and biosorbent. So, it would be more informative if Table 2 could include the mechanism of attraction (physisorption, chemisorption or ion exchange) 

Line 527. Use the word 'Low-cost' instead of Cheap.

References section - All plant scientific names must be written in italics. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many grammatical errors are found throughout the manuscript. Therefore, the authors must make corrections before this article is accepted for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 27 - for consistency, use the word biosorbents throughout the manuscript, not adsorbent or bioadsorbent. Also, use the word biosorption instead of adsorption.

Response 1: The words were modified taking into account those suggested by the reviewer.

Lines 80-84 - The authors need to mention the concentration of phenol tested in those studies.

Response 2: The concentration of phenol used in the aforementioned study was mentioned (see lines 82-83).

Line 142 - Why did the authors not use the keyword 'biosorption'? This word is also widely used.   

Response 3:  The word biosorption was used as a keyword.

Tables 2-3 - Authors are required to include the adsorption capacity values (mg/g) for each reported biosorbent. One of the important information in the biosorption study is the type of interaction (mechanism) between biosorbate and biosorbent. So, it would be more informative if Table 2 could include the mechanism of attraction (physisorption, chemisorption or ion exchange) 

Response 4:  The adsorption capacity values of the reviewed biosorbents were included.

Line 527. Use the word 'Low-cost' instead of Cheap.

Response 5: The word Cheap was changed to Low-cost.

References section - All plant scientific names must be written in italics. 

Response 6: All scientific names of plants were written in italics.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many grammatical errors are found throughout the manuscript. Therefore, the authors must make corrections before this article is accepted for publication.

Response 7: The English writing style correction has been carried out with the help of a specialized company, as well as with the support of a native English speaker.

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This review manuscript reports a critical analysis on the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. Authors also summarized the exploration, preparation and application of innovative adsorbents to remove various forms of nutrients such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrates, ammonium and phosphates from aqueous solution. This manuscript has been well revised from its original version, and is potential for publication in water after clarifying some minor issues, as follows:

 

1.

Section 1. Introduction.

Authors are recommended to merge some paragraphs, as many paragraphs are very short, containing a few sentences, and have the same topic.

 

2.

Section 2. Materials and Methods.

Authors are recommended to merge this Section 2 into the end of Section 1, as a review article it is not common to have “Materials and Methods”.

 

3.

Conclusion.

Authors should put the conclusion into one paragraph.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This review manuscript reports a critical analysis on the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. Authors also summarized the exploration, preparation and application of innovative adsorbents to remove various forms of nutrients such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrates, ammonium and phosphates from aqueous solution. This manuscript has been well revised from its original version, and is potential for publication in water after clarifying some minor issues, as follows:

 

1.

Section 1. Introduction.

Authors are recommended to merge some paragraphs, as many paragraphs are very short, containing a few sentences, and have the same topic.

 

Response 1: Paragraphs were joined in order to avoid them being short.

 

 

2.

Section 2. Materials and Methods.

Authors are recommended to merge this Section 2 into the end of Section 1, as a review article it is not common to have “Materials and Methods”.

 

Response 2: Section 2 was joined at the end of section 1.

 

3.

Conclusion.

Authors should put the conclusion into one paragraph.

 

Response 3: The conclusion was placed in a single paragraph.

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review critically analyzed the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. This review should be revised in order to consider the following comments:

1- The English should be improved.

2- The paragraphs especially in the introduction is very short. 

3- In most results from the  previous studies, the removal efficiency using adsorption treatment process is relatively low. This suggests the use of combined processes. This fact should be mentioned in the discussion. and some references of combined   adsorption treatment systems are should be cited. such as:

Z Al-Qodah, TM Al-Zghoul, A Jamrah, The performance of pharmaceutical wastewater treatment system of electrocoagulation assisted adsorption using perforated electrodes to reduce passivation, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15, Published: online,  20 February 2024. 

4- The isotherm and kinetic models used in the previous studies should be summarized. 

5- The adsorbent used should be classified into two main categories:

a- Bioadsorbents used after chemical or other process activation

b- No activation used.

6- Some recommendations should be stated after the conclusion. 

7- Some highlights and a graphical abstract should be added

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Should be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review critically analyzed the use of bioadsorbents derived from rice husks and corn residues for nutrient removal from aqueous solutions. This review should be revised in order to consider the following comments:

• The English should be improved.

Response 1: The English writing style correction has been carried out with the help of a specialized company, as well as with the support of a native English speaker.

• The paragraphs especially in the introduction is very short. 

Response 2: In the introduction section, paragraphs were joined in order to avoid them being short.

3- In most results from the  previous studies, the removal efficiency using adsorption treatment process is relatively low. This suggests the use of combined processes. This fact should be mentioned in the discussion. and some references of combined   adsorption treatment systems are should be cited. such as:

Z Al-Qodah, TM Al-Zghoul, A Jamrah, The performance of pharmaceutical wastewater treatment system of electrocoagulation assisted adsorption using perforated electrodes to reduce passivation, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15, Published: online,  20 February 2024. 

Response 3: The combination of processes has been commented, taking into account the recommended article, as well as others (see lines 524-532).

4-The isotherm and kinetic models used in the previous studies should be summarized. 

Response 4: The kinetic models and adsorption isotherms were summarized (see lines 229-236).

5- The adsorbent used should be classified into two main categories:

a- Bioadsorbents used after chemical or other process activation

b- No activation used.

Response 5: The classification of the adsorbents used was classified according to the recommended categories, see tables 2 and 3.

6- Some recommendations should be stated after the conclusion. 

Response 6: Recommendations have been added at the end of the conclusion.

7- Some highlights and a graphical abstract should be added

Response 7: Some highlights and the graphical abstract have been added.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Agoindustrial residual to remove nutrient from wastewater.
• Rice husk can remove up to 95% of phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater.
• Corn straw biochar can remove up to 99% of nitrogen in aqueous solution.

Graphical Abstract

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Here are my recommendations for improving your manuscript so that can be considered for publication:

1. Please check the references within the text, they should be cited in order and reference 100 could not be before the reference 99.

2. The abstract should give more insights, detailing the findings and future work (e.g. how many studies were considered, how many articles, results etc.),

3. Can you please detail this sentence? ": a) Natural sources, such as atmospheric deposition", give some examples about what kind of atmospheric deposition, what sort of pollutants?

4. You really need to reconsider the reference citation system. Citation 110 could not be after citations 5 or 6. Please reconsider this.

5. What do you mean by this sentence? Can you give more insights? You need to include citations when mentioning various studies or similar research run.

"Studies have focused on other low- or no-cost materials based on live or dead bio-mass, including readily available agroindustrial residues. Many agroindustrial residues, such as rice husks and corn residues, have been used to collect bioadsorbents for removing phosphorus, nitrogen, and other specific contaminants, such as heavy metals, from aqueous solutions". 

6. Section 2 should be more elaborated and mention how many studies do you considered and a statistical info about it would help.

7. Please also include articles published in 2023 and rearrange the references.

8. "Research articles were selected considering the following criteria"—How many articles on each criterion did you consider? Please include a distribution of considered articles.

9. is there any meaning to the green sentences?

10. Lines 157-158 need citations.

11. Please mention in Table 1 the permissible limits—allowable limit according to? and add a citation.

12. Figure should be at a better resolution, and, maybe more creative.

13. Please be consistent and use waste instead of residues, if it is the case.

14. I am not sure if the loggo is ok to be in manuscript. Please check the copy rights.

15. Lines 517-520 need citations.

16. The Conclusions section needs to be more elaborated and present the goal of your study, the methodology followed and the main findings and limitations (briefly).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the introduction  and sections 3, 5 and 9.

Author Response

Dear authors,

Here are my recommendations for improving your manuscript so that can be considered for publication:

1. Please check the references within the text, they should be cited in order and reference 100 could not be before the reference 99.

Response 1: References were adjusted in the manuscript according to recommendations.

 

2. The abstract should give more insights, detailing the findings and future work (e.g. how many studies were considered, how many articles, results etc.),

Response 2: The abstract was modified taking into account the maximum word length recommended by the journal and the reviewer's comments.

 

3. Can you please detail this sentence? ": a) Natural sources, such as atmospheric deposition", give some examples about what kind of atmospheric deposition, what sort of pollutants?

Response 3: An example has been written about the types of atmospheric deposition as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus transport in bodies of water (see lines 54-56).

 

4. You really need to reconsider the reference citation system. Citation 110 could not be after citations 5 or 6. Please reconsider this.

Response 4: References were adjusted in the manuscript according to recommendations.

 

5. What do you mean by this sentence? Can you give more insights? You need to include citations when mentioning various studies or similar research run.

"Studies have focused on other low- or no-cost materials based on live or dead bio-mass, including readily available agroindustrial residues. Many agroindustrial residues, such as rice husks and corn residues, have been used to collect bioadsorbents for removing phosphorus, nitrogen, and other specific contaminants, such as heavy metals, from aqueous solutions". 

Response 5: The idea has been clarified and citations corresponding to the stated ruling have been provided (see lines 72-76).

 

 

6. Section 2 should be more elaborated and mention how many studies do you considered and a statistical info about it would help.

Response 6: Section 2 was merged with the introduction, taking into account another reviewer's recommendation. However, the recommended statistical information was included (see lines 145-148).

 

7. Please also include articles published in 2023 and rearrange the references.

Response 7: Some articles published in 2023 have been included (see table 3).

 

8. "Research articles were selected considering the following criteria"—How many articles on each criterion did you consider? Please include a distribution of considered articles.

Response 8: The distribution of articles considered according to the different criteria set out has been included (see lines 151-156).

 

9. is there any meaning to the green sentences?

Response 9: The sentences in green corresponded to adjustments requested by the editor. They have no special meaning related to the article.

 

10. Lines 157-158 need citations.

Response 10: The aforementioned sentence was cited.

 

11. Please mention in Table 1 the permissible limits—allowable limit according to? and add a citation.

Response 11: The permissible limit is indicated in the last column of table 1. As well as the quote. For example, for Nitrates, 10 mg/L is indicated and its reference in square brackets next to the maximum permissible limit.

 

12. Figure should be at a better resolution, and, maybe more creative.

 

Response 12: Thanks for the suggestion, the figures were improved to meet the quality required by the journal.

 

13. Please be consistent and use waste instead of residues, if it is the case.

 

Response 13: Thanks for the observation, the suggested terms were taken into account to improve the consistency of the manuscript.

 

14. I am not sure if the loggo is ok to be in manuscript. Please check the copy rights.

Response 14: The loggo was removed to avoid inconvenience.

 

15. Lines 517-520 need citations.

 

Response 15: The indicated paragraph has been cited.

 

16. The Conclusions section needs to be more elaborated and present the goal of your study, the methodology followed and the main findings and limitations (briefly).

Response 16: The conclusion section was improved taking into account the suggestions.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: See the introduction  and sections 3, 5 and 9.

 

Response 17: The English writing style correction has been carried out with the help of a specialized company, as well as with the support of a native English speaker.

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors successfully considered the reviewers comments and the manuscript is significantly improved. I recommend its acceptance.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-