Dual-Functional Nanostructures for Purification of Water in Severe Conditions from Heavy Metals and E. coli Bacteria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

First of all, thank you so much for the opportunity to assist you in the revision of this manuscript. In a general way, I found the manuscript quite interesting. By other hand, the discussion needs further deepening because some of results were merely presented. Moreover, some figures can be improved.

To facilitate my revision, I have been used a digitizing table and my appointments are in the PDF file attached to this e-mail.

I also suggest to the authors reviewing the English before final publication. Some sentences are meaningless and there are many spelling errors.

Taking into account all these aspects, I think that this article must be ACCEPTED AFTER MAJOR REVISIONS.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on this matter.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review 

Please see the attached file

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

None

Author Response

Thank you for your review 

Nothing was required

Best wishes

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and within the scope of the journal. There are, however, some key things missing and some points which have to be improved. 

My main criticism is about the part on the antibacterial studies; there is no description of the protocol in the experimental section. This must be added, including the name of the exact strain they used. Because no protocol is present, it is not clear if the authors performed a control using the simple DMSO solvent; this point has to be addressed and the control must be performed.  

My other concern is about the organisation of the study, as the data are not presented in a very linear way. It makes more sense to characterise first all sample ZA-1, ZA-2 and ZA-3, and subsequently determine their removal activity. 

Regarding the removal activity, it is not clear which criterium the authors used to chose the values of the metals' concentration; can the authors explain?

Finally, the English language must be improved in the whole text.  

Author Response

Thank you for your review 

Please see the attached file

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the article was substantially improved and for this reason it can be accepted for final publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Best wishes

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised version the authors addressed the first two points raised by the reviewer (method for the antibacterial activity and order of discussion in the manuscript) but they did not address the third one.

The authos must specify which criterium they used to choose the metals' concentrations in the adsorption experiments. 

Moreover, it seems to me the language still needs some polishing.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Please see the attached file

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx