Microbial Bioremediation and Biodegradation of Petroleum Products—A Mini Review
, Emmanuel Kweinor Tetteh 2, Mark Opoku Amankwa 3, Dennis Asante-Sackey 4, Samuel Ofori-Frimpong 5, Edward Kwaku Armah 6, Sudesh Rathilal 2, Amir H. Mohammadi 1 and Maggie Chetty 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall the paper is good and adds to the knowledge but it is still lacking.
A good overview is given on technologies but no detailed discussion of other studies is offered. It is a good summary of the background knowledge but required some critical analysis of other studies' work and the results obtained.
Specifically for section 2/4- I feel that if the authors could add some references in relation to other people finding for the remediation of THP etc it would significantly improve the review.
Section 4- overall gives a good overview but some examples of where their technologies have been used and the result obtained would add to the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reviewed the bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants in water and soil, focusing on petroleum biodegradable microorganisms essential for the biodegradation of petroleum
contaminants. This review includes enough information, but more critical discussion should be added.
Introduction
1. Line 88-97, I would like to see some sentences about the current review paper on the same topic and what is the difference between your review and previous review?
2. Petroleum products
1. The author just listed the types of hydrocarbons degradation and biodegradable pollutants and brief described the characteristics of the pollutants. If you, maybe better to demonstrate this section in a table.
4. Emerging biodegradation technologies
1. Also in different biodegradation technologies, the author just demonstrated the characteristics. More information such as the example that use this technology and its removal efficiency should be added.
2. Critical review about different technologies (pros and cons and applications) should be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has addressed all my concerns.
