Microplastics in Wastewater and Drinking Water Treatment Plants: Occurrence and Removal of Microfibres
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.
- The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.
- More suitable title should be selected for the article.
- Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly
- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
- Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.
-It is suggested to add articles entitled “Buaisha et al. Heavy Metal Removal Investigation in Conventional Activated Sludge Systems”, “Scharnberg et al. Optical and Structural Characterization of Bi2FexNbO7 Nanoparticles for Environmental Applications” and “Mirra et al. Towards Energy Efficient Onsite Wastewater Treatment” to the literature review.
- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
- This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.
- Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “MICROPLASTICS IN WASTEWATER AND DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS: OCCURRENCE AND REMOVAL OF MICROFIBERS” by Daniel Sol, Amanda Laca, Adriana Laca and Mario Díaz as authors. The manuscript has been modified according with reviewers’ suggestions and a detailed response to reviewers’ comments has also been included. All changes performed in the text have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as Editor instructions.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
Point 1: The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.
Response 1: The introduction section has been modified according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (see references 15, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 38).
Point 2: More suitable title should be selected for the article.
Response 2: Title has been changed to reflect the content of the manuscript.
Point 3: Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly
Response 3: A paragraph has been added at the end of the introduction section to clarify this point (page 2, lines 66-75).
Point 4: Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.
Response 4: Abstract section has been modified according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.
Point 5: It is suggested to add articles entitled “Buaisha et al. Heavy Metal Removal Investigation in Conventional Activated Sludge Systems”, “Scharnberg et al. Optical and Structural Characterization of Bi2FexNbO7 Nanoparticles for Environmental Applications” and “Mirra et al. Towards Energy Efficient Onsite Wastewater Treatment” to the literature review.
Response 5: These references have been included in the manuscript (page 4, line 110 and lines 129-131).
Point 6: For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
Response 6: Abstract and Introduction sections have been modified to meet Reviewer’s indications.
Point 7: This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.
Response 7: In this work, a review on the current status of the occurrence and removal of MPs in WWTPs and DWTPs has been carried out. This information has been clarified in the abstract and in the introduction sections.
Point 8: Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
Response 8: Since this manuscript is a review, all results discussed in this work have been obtained from the works found in literature.
Point 9: Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
Response 9: In all cases, results, and values from MPs and MPFs have been extracted from the literature to carry out this review (see list of references).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments
The authors have made an important contribute to the database of microplastics pollution in this study. The authors conducted a long, extensive survey and obtained valuable data. However, the current version of manuscript has many problems that cannot be ignored. To meet the standards of Applied Sciences, major revisions are necessary for this manuscript.
Specific Comments
For the manuscript, it is recommended to use MPs or microplastics uniformly.
In Figure 1, does the color of the arrows have a special meaning?
In Table 1, I don't understand the data in reference 50.
Line 156, references are needed about “≥90%”.
Line 168, according to the following, particles in “at least 95% removal of these particles” refers to MPFs. It may be better to use MPFs here.
Line 220 is inconsistent with line 168, which discusses studies that have achieved at least 95% removal.
Line 340, 6600 MPs/L in the sentence is inconsistent with the data in Table 3.
Please consider following references based on your topic, especially in the Introduction and Discussion:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142808
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147149
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148200
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112427
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112240
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150141
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125747
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “MICROPLASTICS IN WASTEWATER AND DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS: OCCURRENCE AND REMOVAL OF MICROFIBERS” by Daniel Sol, Amanda Laca, Adriana Laca and Mario Díaz as authors. The manuscript has been modified according with reviewers’ suggestions and a detailed response to reviewers’ comments has also been included. All changes performed in the text have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as Editor instructions.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors have made an important contribute to the database of microplastics pollution in this study. The authors conducted a long, extensive survey and obtained valuable data. However, the current version of manuscript has many problems that cannot be ignored. To meet the standards of Applied Sciences, major revisions are necessary for this manuscript.
Point 1: For the manuscript, it is recommended to use MPs or microplastics uniformly.
Response 1: According to Reviewer’s suggestion, the word “microplastic” and “microplastics” has been changed by “MP” and “MPs”, respectively.
Point 2: In Figure 1, does the color of the arrows have a special meaning?
Response 2: Colour of arrows of Figure 1 has been modified to avoid misunderstanding.
Point 3: In Table 1, I don't understand the data in reference 50.
Response 3: In reference 50, the authors analysed MPs from effluents of two sewage treatment plants in Australia. The only data reported was the MP concentration (1 MPs/L) and there is no further information about the abundance of microfibres.
Point 4: Line 156, references are needed about “≥90%”.
Response 4: Several references are included according to Reviewer’s suggestion (page 9, line 183).
Point 5: Line 168, according to the following, particles in “at least 95% removal of these particles” refers to MPFs. It may be better to use MPFs here.
Response 5: “These particles” has been changed by “MPFs” in order to clarify the sentence (page 9, lines 194-195).
Point 6: Line 220 is inconsistent with line 168, which discusses studies that have achieved at least 95% removal.
Response 6: The sentence has been modified in order to be consistent with the statement and context (page 10, lines 247-248).
Point 7: Line 340, 6600 MPs/L in the sentence is inconsistent with the data in Table 3.
Response 7: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, 6600 MPs/L has been changed by the data reported in reference 156 and Table 3 (6614 MPs/L) (page 15, line 403).
Point 8: Please consider following references based on your topic, especially in the Introduction and Discussion:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142808
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147149
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148200
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112427
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112240
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150141
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125747
Response 8: According to Reviewer’s suggestion, all the references have been included in the manuscript (the new references are 15,24,25,26,29,30 and 38).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors in attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript entitled “MICROPLASTICS IN WASTEWATER AND DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS: OCCURRENCE AND REMOVAL OF MICROFIBERS” by Daniel Sol, Amanda Laca, Adriana Laca and Mario Díaz as authors. The manuscript has been modified according with reviewers’ suggestions and a detailed response to reviewers’ comments has also been included. All changes performed in the text have been marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as Editor instructions.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The subject of this paper is suitable for publication profile of Applied Sciences. The article concerns a very important and current subject of microfiber occurrence and removal in wastewater and drinking water treatment plants, which is known and is a globally big problem , therefore the article will surely find many readers. The paper is well written, the text is clear and easy to read by the reader. The figures are drawn correctly. Overall, the paper was written in fluency and clear organization. The conclusions presented by the authors are consistent with the evidence and arguments. I propose the adoption of the manuscript after minor revision.
Point 1: The article can be published, but they should be supplemented with the methods used for the analysis of Microplastics (MPs) and microfibers (MPFs).
Response 1: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, an overview of the methods used for the analysis and quantification of MPs has been introduced in the main text (pages 11-12, lines 347-379; page 15, lines 431-441 and page 18, lines 475-481).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Excellent! Since the authors have made significant revisions according to the comments raised by all reviewers, I am supportive of this study for publication in Applied Sciences.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for their efforts in revising the manuscript, I believe the revised manuscript can already be published in this journal.