Development of Adsorptive Materials for Selective Removal of Toxic Metals in Wastewater: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1)Add the outlook part of the paper.
(2) How to regenerate the adsorption saturated material needs to be stated.
(3) The author introduced so many adsorbents, and how to choose and use these adsorbents for different heavy metals needs to be stated.
(4) The logic of the paper is chaotic, which needs to be re sorted.
(5) About the introduction of graphene, the two latest articles are recommended to read and quote：Journal of Hazardous Materials 403 (2021) 123673；Chemical Engineering Journal 412 (2021) 128627.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I appreciate your effort in improving the current review paper. The corrections were applied as suggested. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides a good review of Adsorptive Materials for Selective Removal of Toxic Metals in Wastewater. However the introduction is too short and it does not set a clear context for it.
More summary tables would be needed as the review ended up being too long. For example for the review part about the models. The models are just described without comparison between them. What are the assumptions associated with each? Errors intrinsic to the model?
Part related to treatment is also too general. Discussion among them with thermal and nano and so on? Too descriptive. The same for direct and indirect methods. What are the benefits and characteristics of each?
Conclusions are really weak and shallow.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I appreciate your effort in improving the current review paper. The corrections were applied as suggested. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this article " Development of Adsorptive Materials for Selective Removal of Toxic Metals in Wastewater: A Review ", authors mentioned about various adsorptive materials for selective removal of toxic metals in wastewater. The manuscript consists of a lot of data However, the following points should be address before publication.
The abstract looks like very short Hence should be result oriented.
Authors need to mention a few recent references in introduction section, would be helpful to support the content like Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126589, Energy and Environment Focus 2 (3), 208-216, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 148, Pages 702-712, J. Hazard. Mater 264, 481-489.
Need to revise all blurred figures with high quality. (specially figure one)
Actually the organization of article is looking like an essay type (very lengthy) not a scientific article, few things can be helpful as follows:
In synthesis part, add one figure of demonstration for better understanding.
lack of heading/sub-heading like just after introduction.
In each part/section, numbering to heading/subheading should be given.
In the last paragraph of introduction, authors need to highlight the main points of the articles.
Add few lines in each subheading by your own to interpret the previous studies.
In each part/section, add few related figures.
Add one table regarding the adsorptive material and metal which was used to remove.
The conclusion must precise and attractive.
Please check the grammatical error throughout the manuscript to uplift the standard of the article.
Please check the spacing error throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I appreciate your effort in improving the current review paper. The corrections were applied as suggested. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper has significantly improved in order to reach high standards for publication
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for your contribution to this edition of our publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
We appreciate your contribution. The suggestions are well noted.
