Mitigation of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory and Antiretroviral Drugs as Environmental Pollutants by Adsorption Using Nanomaterials as Viable Solution—A Critical Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented a review of the removal of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiretroviral drugs using various adsorbents. The manuscript can be considered for publication after mandatory revisions. 
1. The title should be revised. What does it mean by various adsorption technologies? 

2. The highlights could be improved to better illustrate/highlight the content of the review

3. Figure 1 can be improved to make it more catchy and interesting 

4. Inconsistent of using italic " et al." throughout the manuscript 

5. Line 116-131, the section is just too brief and shallow. Wastewater treatment methods along with their respective advantages/disadvantages should be highlighted 

6. Figure 2 should be re-drawn to better illustrate the sources of pollutants. The arrows in the figure are confusing and do not correlate with each other 

7. List of abbreviations should be provided at the beginning of the manuscript. 

8. Line 315. There should be some elaboration on the various approaches for detecting NSAIDs and ARV drugs in various environmental matrices instead of just mentioned they are classified as polar/non-polar sorbents. Otherwise, the paragraph is hanging. 

9. Section 4.1 line 350-376. The write-up is shallow. Factors affecting the adsorption should be further discussed. 

10. Caption in Figure 3 is misleading. It is not the general adsorption mechanism but various adsorbents reported in the literature. 

11. Figure 7 and 9 are blurred. Improve the resolution 

12. Table 2 is wrongly labelled. Check the % removal reported by Hiew et al., 2019 in Table 2 (why is 325%?) 

13. Table 2 should be discussed instead of just merely presenting it. 

14. The conclusions could be improved. It is too lengthy. 

15. Some references are incomplete (line 1034, 1172, 1183). Please check 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER RECOMMENDED CHANGES	RESPONSE
. The title should be revised. What does it mean by various adsorption technologies?	Thank you for such valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.
The highlights could be improved to better illustrate/highlight the content of the review	This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.
Figure 1 can be improved to make it more catchy and interesting	Believe this figure to be satisfactory for us
Inconsistent of using italic " et al." throughout the manuscript	We have updated all the ‘et al.’
Line 116-131, the section is just too brief and shallow. Wastewater treatment methods along with their respective advantages/disadvantages should be highlighted	Noted and updated
Figure 2 should be re-drawn to better illustrate the sources of pollutants. The arrows in the figure are confusing and do not correlate with each other	Arrows re-arranged for better understanding
List of abbreviations should be provided at the beginning of the manuscript	We have included the list of abbreviations
Line 315. There should be some elaboration on the various approaches for detecting NSAIDs and ARV drugs in various environmental matrices instead of just mentioned they are classified as polar/non-polar sorbents. Otherwise, the paragraph is hanging.	Section 3.2 does mention all the types of approached used and materials used to detected these pharmaceutical, the fact that they are polar compounds and polar makes them challenging to be removed in our water systems, this has been mentioned throughout these sections
Section 4.1 line 350-376. The write-up is shallow. Factors affecting the adsorption should be further discussed.	Noted and updated
. Caption in Figure 3 is misleading. It is not the general adsorption mechanism but various adsorbents reported in the literature.	This has being corrected and highlighted in yellow
. Figure 7 and 9 are blurred. Improve the resolution	This has being corrected and highlighted in yellow
Table 2 is wrongly labelled. Check the % removal reported by Hiew et al., 2019 in Table 2 (why is 325%?)	This has being corrected and highlighted in yellow
Table 2 should be discussed instead of just merely presenting it.	It has in the section above, the table is the addition and summary of has been written
The conclusions could be improved. It is too lengthy.	It has been summarized, as requested.
Some references are incomplete (line 1034, 1172, 1183). Please check	This has being corrected and highlighted in yellow

Reviewer 2 Report

1 Title need attention to reflects the content of review (the occurrence should be removed because most of the overviewed articles repot pollutants removal not determination)

2 Some information in Lines 62-74 already mentioned in previous parts. It would be better it merged with the previous part and remove the overlap.  

3 It might be enough to arrange the section about Biochar to be subsection of carbon based sorbents

4 line 553- can you please cite the patent by Antonin Formhals for the electrospinning apparatus in 1934.  

1 Title need attention to reflects the content of review (the occurrence should be removed because most of the overviewed articles repot pollutants removal not determination)

2 Some information in Lines 62-74 already mentioned in previous parts. It would be better it merged with the previous part and remove the overlap.  

3 It might be enough to arrange the section about Biochar to be subsection of carbon based sorbents

4 line 553- can you please cite the patent by Antonin Formhals for the electrospinning apparatus in 1934.  

Author Response

REVIEWER RECOMMENDED CHANGES	RESPONSE
Title need attention to reflects the content of review (the occurrence should be removed because most of the overviewed articles repot pollutants removal not determination)	Thank you for such valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.
Some information in Lines 62-74 already mentioned in previous parts. It would be better it merged with the previous part and remove the overlap	This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.
It might be enough to arrange the section about Biochar to be subsection of carbon based sorbents	This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.
line 553- can you please cite the patent by Antonin Formhals for the electrospinning apparatus in 1934.	This has been addressed as highlighted in yellow.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions. However, there are some minor grammatical mistakes (verb form, incorrect use of prepositions) that can be found throughout the manuscript though it is insignificant. For example, line 162, 220, 285, 861, 887.