Low-Cost Adsorbents for the Removal of Phenol/Phenolics, Pesticides, and Dyes from Wastewater Systems: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting.
I recommend publication only if the following issues can be addressed.
- The authors must discuss the differences between their work and previous articles.
- Lines 35-37 on page 2: You should mention that the discharge of wastewater (e.g., brine) degrades water quality and thus water cannot be directly used for potable water (via desalination) and industrial applications. Cite the following references:
Panagopoulos, A., & Giannika, V. (2022). Comparative techno-economic and environmental analysis of minimal liquid discharge (MLD) and zero liquid discharge (ZLD) desalination systems for seawater brine treatment and valorization. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102477.
Panagopoulos, A. (2022). Brine management (saline water & wastewater effluents): Sustainable utilization and resource recovery strategy through Minimal and Zero Liquid Discharge (MLD & ZLD) desalination systems. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, 108944.
Panagopoulos, A. (2022). Techno-economic assessment and feasibility study of a zero liquid discharge (ZLD) desalination hybrid system in the Eastern Mediterranean. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, 178, 109029.
- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results.
- Conclusion: Discuss the applicability of your findings and future study in this field.
- Language editing is recommended.
- Grammar editing is recommended.
- A new section regarding 'future prospects' should be added.
- Try to not use so many units for concentration, etc
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review my revised paper [see attachment].
Thanks
Prof Dr HO SOON MIN
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion the introduction information included to many basic information, it should be shortened. The basic information about adsorption process and adsorbents properties should be omitted. Is not clean that mean “low-cost” adsorbents, Author present all adsorbents which are uses in laboratory and technical scale, but some of it are very expensive. The definition of low-costs adsorbents should be presented and it efficiency in removal of chosen pollutions. Results of presented researches do not include information about costs of preparation of adsorbents and operation costs.
Author Response
Dear editor,
Please review revised paper [see attachment].
Thanks
Prof Dr HO SOON MIN
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are quite a lot of articles of this kind at the present time. I have a few questions about this article.
1.What is the cost of these sorbents. It would be logical for Blo to give a table of the cost of all the described sorbents.
2. The cost of regeneration is not given, and it is not particularly highlighted whether regeneration of sorbents is possible - simply if it is impossible, then the term "low cost" is not entirely correct.
3. did not find the surface area of all the mentioned sorbents. Perhaps it would be more correct to create a table with all the data on sorbents, especially if the article is a review.
4. I would like to see Freundlich and Langmuir plots in order to also understand the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review revised paper [see attachment].
Thanks
Prof Dr HO SOON MIN
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Summary and general comments
In this review paper, the authors discussed several adsorbent types for capturing phenol/phenolics, pesticides, and dyes.
The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. Important points are summarised neatly in the tables. However, there are some minor errors and some suggestions for further improvement. Please see specific comments for the detail
Specific comments
1. The title can be rewritten to specify this paper focuses only on capturing phenol/phenolics, pesticides, and dyes
2. Line 66 qe should be described as the adsorption capacity at equilibrium
3. There is no need to define qe in line76-77, and line 81 as qe is already defined in line 66
4. Line 76-77, the Xm of eq2 should be the theoretic maximum adsorption capacity.
5. For table 3, there is no need to add the author's name to the reference column.
6. For Table 7, recheck the row “Coal, coconut and bamboo-based activated carbon ” as the unit of adsorption capacity should be mg/g, not mg/L
7. Some of the tables contain the scientific name of the biological organism. Following the rule of biology, the genus and species names need to be italicised.
8. Recheck the table description of Table 11 as this section refer to dyes instead of pesticides.
9. For table 11, some highly important basic dyes such as Methyl violet 2B and rhodamine B were not mentioned. I suggest authors add a few. Here are some of my recommendations: doi.org/10.1007/s13201-017-0537-1 doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2021.11.001
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please review revised paper [see attachment].
Thanks
Prof Dr Ho Soon Min
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved significantly their manuscript, which is now ready for publication. I recommend acceptance for publication.
