The Removal and Mitigation Effects of Biochar on Microplastics in Water and Soils: Application and Mechanism Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides an overview of how biochar mitigates the negative effects of microplastics in aquatic and soil environments.

Lines 35-36: Please double-check this sentence; I’m unclear about what you are trying to express. 

Lines 63-64: It would be beneficial to reference more recent publications, such as:

Xiao, S., Cui, Y., Brahney, J., Mahowald, N.M., & Li, Q. (2023). Long-distance atmospheric transport of microplastic fibres influenced by their shapes. Nature Geoscience, 16(10), 863-870.

Line 116: Please specify what the new danger is.

Line 147: Is it accurate to say 100%? Perhaps "almost 100%" would be more appropriate.

Line 170: Is distribution the main mechanism? Please double-check this.

Line 379: Is "promote" the right word in this context?

Line 394: When discussing water treatment, could you clarify what you mean here?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewing report for the Review article entitled: The removal and mitigation effects of biochar on microplastics in water and soils: application and mechanism analysis

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done applicable and interesting work through the manuscript, but I have some comments to be addressed:

1.      In the introduction part the authors should improve the background about biochar materials and carbon source materials and other materials used in removal of micro plastics and some new references should be added.

2.      In my opinion some Figures representing biochar preparation and microplastics removal process should be added.

3.      The authors should express clearly the novelty of their work (what is the added value of the review article).

4.      The references should be more updated.

5.      The quality of Figure 1 should be improved.

6.      All the Tables in the review article should be improved and rechecked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

This is an interesting review article. The authors outlined in this review the various application and mechanism of biochar as adsorbent in water environment for the removal of MPs. This review is well written and well structured. I recommend this paper to be accepted after minor comments.

1.      Some illustrative examples about superior biochar synthesis (discussion about the synthesis methods and conditions) for MPs adsorption must be added in this review.

2.      The best feedstock for biochar which showed best performance must be highlighted in this review and also in the abstract at least one sentence.

3.      The adsorption mechanism still needs some enhancement with deep discussion.

4.      The conclusion must be existed independently at the end of the manuscript.

 

5.      Prospects and challenges must be rewritten with clear recommendations for future sturdies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This research reviews the effects of microplastic-biochar interactions in water and soil environments.   This review article discusses the biochar removal mechanisms of microplastics and their application in environmental remediation, highlighting their relevance to the field. It addresses the gap in environmental science, particularly in soil, regarding the combined effects of biochar and microplastics in soil.   This review summarizes studies on the removal and remediation of microplastics in water and soil. It does not contribute new content to this field.    The study uses tables and Figures, which are all appropriate. The conclusions are consistent with the summaries.   The review reviewed the combined effects of biochar and microplastics in soil.  However, the paper lacks comprehensible content and Figures. More Figures should be used to make it more readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript was improved significantly after the revision. My suggestion is to accept it.