Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Strategies in Effective Abatement of Emerging Pollutants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on sustainable wastewater treatment strategies in effective abatement of emerging pollutants. The authors arranged the manuscript well, and it provide essential knowledge. Although, there are few minor mistakes which need to be addressed prior to any decision.

 

There are several similar kinds of review are published in literature. Please highlight the novelty of your manuscript.

Either use biological or bio-logical.

In Table 1, please add culture conditions of microbes.

Please remove % symbol in Table 1, column 2, row 4.

Page 9, first line, please check the sentence “the result of this study” author conducted any study.

Please change “A Typha latifolia” to “Typha latifolia”.

Please the add the role of algae especially microalgae in the remediation of emerging contaminates.

Please shorten the 3.1 and 3.2 section, and mainly focus on biological method.

In Table 2, please change the nanmaterials to Nanomaterials

There are lots of old references, please replace them with latest one.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. We greatly appreciate your insights, which have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments:

Reviewer’s 01

Comment 1:

The manuscript focuses on sustainable wastewater treatment strategies in effective abatement of emerging pollutants. The authors arranged the manuscript well, and it provide essential knowledge. Although, there are few minor mistakes which need to be addressed prior to any decision

There are several similar kinds of review are published in literature. Please highlight the novelty of your manuscript.

Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the novelty of the manuscript. In response, we have revised the abstract to clearly highlight the novelty of our work, which has been emphasized in green for your convenience. We appreciate your insightful comment, which has helped improve the clarity of our manuscript.

Comment 2:

Either use biological or bio-logical.

Response

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We used the word "biological" throughout the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and corrected this mistake by using the appropriate terminology in the revised version.

Comment 3:

In Table 1, please add culture conditions of microbes.

Response

We have now added the relevant details regarding the culture conditions for each microbe in the revised table, providing a clearer and more comprehensive overview of the experimental setup.

Comment 4:

Please remove % symbol in Table 1, column 2, row 4.

Response

Thank you for your careful review. We have removed the "%" symbol from Table 1, column 2, row 4, as per your suggestion.

Comment 5:

Page 9, first line, please check the sentence “the result of this study” author conducted any study.

Response

Thank you for pointing out this oversight. The sentence "the result of this study" was indeed unclear. We have revised it for accuracy and clarity to reflect the context of our work.

Comment 6:

Please change “A Typha latifolia” to “Typha latifolia”.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the article “A” and revised the text to “Typha latifolia” as per your request.

Comment 7:

Please the add the role of algae especially microalgae in the remediation of emerging contaminates.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have now included a section discussing the role of algae, particularly microalgae, in the remediation of emerging contaminants. This addition highlights the mechanisms through which microalgae can absorb and degrade pollutants, contributing to sustainable bioremediation strategies. We appreciate your insightful recommendation to enhance the manuscript.

Comment 8:

Please shorten the 3.1 and 3.2 section, and mainly focus on biological method.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have shortened sections 3.1 and 3.2, placing greater emphasis on the biological methods, as per your recommendation. This revision streamlines the discussion and better aligns with the focus of the manuscript.

Comment 9:

In Table 2, please change the nanmaterials to Nanomaterials.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected "nanmaterials" to "Nanomaterials" in Table 2 to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Comment 10:

There are lots of old references, please replace them with latest one.

Response

Thank you for your observation regarding the references. We have reviewed the manuscript and replaced the outdated references with more recent ones to ensure that the citations reflect the current state of research in the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the different methods of treating emerging pollutants from wastewater. The review is very comprehensive with sufficient references to what had been presented in other studies. Results from existing literature have been included to emphasize the efficacy of the chosen methods in treating emerging pollutants. The paper is almost ready for publication, and the following is suggested to the authors:

1)      It is suggested for the authors to add a few sentences towards the end of section 1; Introduction, detailing the paper structure.

2)      Table 1, remove % from row 2.

3)      Line 475, delete repeated words.

 

4)      Line 604-605, it is not clear what the authors are trying to convey in this statement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. We greatly appreciate your insights, which have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments:

Reviewer’s 02

Comment 1:

This paper reviews the different methods of treating emerging pollutants from wastewater. The review is very comprehensive with sufficient references to what had been presented in other studies. Results from existing literature have been included to emphasize the efficacy of the chosen methods in treating emerging pollutants. The paper is almost ready for publication, and the following is suggested to the authors:

It is suggested for the authors to add a few sentences towards the end of section 1; Introduction, detailing the paper structure.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a few sentences at the end of Section 1, Introduction, to detail the structure of the paper. This addition provides readers with a clearer roadmap of the content and organization of the manuscript.

Comment 2:

 Table 1, remove % from row 2.

Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have removed the "%" symbol from row 2 of Table 1 as requested.

Comment 3:

Line 475, delete repeated words.

Response

Thank you for pointing out the repetition in line 475. We have removed the duplicated words for clarity and conciseness.

Comment 4:

  Line 604-605, it is not clear what the authors are trying to convey in this statement.

Response

Thank you for highlighting the lack of clarity in lines 604-605. This text extract has been revised in a more precise and comprehensive expression.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. We greatly appreciate your insights, which have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments:

Reviewer’s 03

Comment 1:

This paper reviews the different methods of treating emerging pollutants from wastewater. The review is very comprehensive with sufficient references to what had been presented in other studies. Results from existing literature have been included to emphasize the efficacy of the chosen methods in treating emerging pollutants. The paper is almost ready for publication, and the following is suggested to the authors:

It is suggested for the authors to add a few sentences towards the end of section 1; Introduction, detailing the paper structure.

Response

Thank you for your comment regarding the notation. We have revised the manuscript to consistently use "NaCl". We avoided the notation "Na-Cl" to prevent any confusion regarding chemical bonding.

Comment 2:

 You need to check if this is the right word (imprudent).

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced the word "imprudent" with "recalcitrant" as you recommended.

Comment 3:

(Sulfamethoxazole). This is not a heavy metal.

Response

Thank you for your observation. We have corrected the reference to sulfamethoxazole in the manuscript to clarify that it is not a heavy metal, and we replace it with antibiotic.

Comment 4:

 (Subsidence). You need to check the proper use of this word.

Response

Thank you for your comment regarding the use of the word "subsidence." We have corrected it.

 

Comment 4:

In other study investigated the chemical precipitation method to remove toxic heavy metals such as total ammonia, nitrogen, phosphate, and fluoride from the wastewater.

You need to analyse this sentence, not clear the link between heavy metals and total ammonia, nitrogen etc.

Response

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in that sentence. We have revised it to better explain the connection between the chemical precipitation method and the removal of toxic heavy metals, as well as total ammonia, nitrogen, phosphate, and fluoride from wastewater. This revision clarifies the relationships among the substances and improves the overall coherence of the statement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf