Particle Size and Pre-Treatment Effects on Polystyrene Microplastic Settlement in Water: Implications for Environmental Behavior and Ecotoxicological Tests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is very well organised and clear and it is focused on the analysis of manual and automated shaking and ultrasonic treatment as different mechanical dispersion techniques for cryomilled polystyrene plastics.
The literature investigation is detailed and the explains why the authors focused on such specific aspects.
The only doubt that I have is related to the pertinence of the paper with respect to the Journal aims.
I agree that microplastic dispersion is a very big environmental issue if we think at natural receiving waters and it is a big management issue if we think at wastewater treatment. If a regulatory limit will be put on microplastics concentrations at the WWTP outlet (actually, in my knowledge, we have only production limits), we will have technical problems to implement efficient treatment processes.
I suggest to highlight potential environmental or treatment impacts of the research on dispersion in order to focus on water. In the present form, the paper seems to be only addressed to industrial processes.
Author Response
For answer, please note the uploaded document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper, entitled Comparison of different mechanical dispersion techniques for polystyrene microplastic dispersions, is a scholarly work and can increase knowledge on this domain. The authors provide an interestig study that is relevant to Water. The abstract and keywords are meaningful. The manuscript is well written and well related to existing literature. I have some specific and general comments: - Please provide error bars in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. - Why a duration time of 754 h? Is it from previous study? Is there any protocol giving such duration time? - Please provide energy balance of these two methods compared in this paper, and discuss about costs analysis. What are the gains or benefits vs costs? As it, this paper requires minor revision and should be revised according to the previous comments. I recommend the following decision: ACCEPT AFTER MINOR REVISION.Author Response
For answer, please note the uploaded document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors were able to improve the manuscript according to the requests of the reviewers. Especially the additions about the environmental implications of their discoveries are much appreciated.