The Emergence of Antibiotics Resistance Genes, Bacteria, and Micropollutants in Grey Wastewater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review article, "The Emergence of Antibiotic Resistance Genes, Bacteria, and Micropollutants in Grey Wastewater," covers an intriguing topic while also providing the necessary background information. In my opinion, however, the article and its readability could benefit from more detail under a few headings.
1. Under the first heading, the authors discuss the prevalence of ARG in GW, listing a handful of pathogens and providing even less data on ARB. The occurrence of antibiotics in GW, the development of multidrug resistance, and the subsequent evolution of the associated antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) should be added to this section. Consider using a table to display this data for greater clarity.
2. While I appreciate the authors' emphasis on the role of micropollutants in the emergence of AMR and ARGs, I don't think they've provided nearly enough evidence to support their claims. As an alternative, this article elaborates on a number of other relevant considerations.
3. In conclusion, the ecotoxicological effects of micropollutants are missing, as are the strategies used to reduce the amount of micropollutants in GW.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Itzhari et al had a view on he current knowledge on sources, spread, and the fate of antibiotic-resistance genes (ARGs) and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (ARB) in microbial communities of greywater and downstream recipients. It is valuable study. It well organized and comprehensively described. There are appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work. The English used correct and readable. However, just there are some minor typo errors that should be checked. For example, citations in the text are in this form: [7]–[10]. I think it is not true format. it should be [7-10]. Please check all.
What is the gap of study? what is your solution to this gap? It should be clear in the introduction section.
Please use more subsections. The sections are general.
The manuscript suffers from having images. It is a review paper. Two images are needed for it st least.
Please separate the conclusion and discussion sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors for including the advised information in the revised manuscript.
Please check the minor spells.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for modifications. The manuscript improved in good way.
However, I think it is need one image at least. I leave that to the editor decision. The manuscript can be accepted if the dear editor agree this review paper without any image or figure. Thanks
