Next Article in Journal
Using Multiple Indices for the Water Resource Management of a Monomictic Man-Made Dam in Southern Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Vicia faba Plant Suitability Assessment for Genotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, and Mutagenicity Testing of Pharmaceutical-Containing Wastewater
Previous Article in Journal
An Implicit Formulation for Calculating Final Conditions in Drainage Maneuvers in Pressurized Water Installations
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Batch Studies on the Biodegradation Potential of Paracetamol, Fluoxetine and 17α-Ethinylestradiol by the Micrococcus yunnanensis Strain TJPT4 Recovered from Marine Organisms

Water 2022, 14(21), 3365; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213365
by Tânia Palma 1,2, Julia Valentine 1,2, Vera Gomes 1, Maria Faleiro 2 and Maria Costa 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Water 2022, 14(21), 3365; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213365
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 9 October 2022 / Accepted: 19 October 2022 / Published: 23 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Persistent and Emerging Organic Contaminants in Natural Environments)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor

The topic is interested for readers and scholar. To have a better results and outcome following tips and question can be noted.

Title

It is very general and needs to be specified for example the authors use; in vitro; in a plat ; etc.

Abstract

This part needs being boosted by conclusion

Keywords have been only selected from title and recommends that those choice by the whole text to better find  

Introduction

The Introduction should be rewritten and also summarized by at least 2 pages at around the topic and keywords.

Line 127, the aim …. I think no needs to describe how/what the authors did. They only imply the novelty.

Methods

2.1 Chemicals, and also all the Part of 2.5 including  2.5.1 and 2 And 3. Must be summarized if it needs the authors would use the citation. In case of where the author did for first time with no references please describe shortly.

Line 290, the best 290 performance ??? what does this condition means? Describe it.

What dose of bacteria was chosen for each substance? Provide a dose not volume ratio

Recovery of bacteria from marine organisms, please mentioned detailed sampling it is very important part in this study how was the sampling done? Did it separated a part of this biota?

Result and discussion

Figure 4. Phylogenetic tree, make a better resolution of this figure. And also I think about other figures.

I strongly recommend that the result and discussion to be summarized there are a lot of descriptions no need.   

Provide a comparison table for this work and the results of literature for the targeted drug or pharmaceutical compounds.

Conclusions

The part is a kind of a summary of the results and discussion please rewrite in a lower word rather than it is.

 

  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Biodegradation potential of paracetamol, fluoxetine and 17α- 2 ethinylestradiol by Micrococcus yunnanensis strain TJPT4 re- 3 covered from marine organisms”, which aimed to evaluate the ability of eight bacteria from two consortia recovered from Hymedesmia versicolor and Filograna implexa marine organisms, to biodegrade some drugs. The research area is highly recommended. The manuscript contains valuable experiments and well designed. Abstract illustrate and indicate the research work, as well as provided with data. The obtained results are presented and discussed in proper way. I advise for acceptance after response to the following comment:

-          Please, provide suggested mechanism for the biodegradation.

-          Did you noticed or correlate the media composition with the efficiency of biodegradation?

-          The conclusion need to be improved and supported with recommendations for the future studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting manuscript please look at the following comments

1) minor English spelling checking is needed

2) the discussion needs to be shortened to 2/3rds of the present length

3) see if some of the figures can be  omitted or placed on supplementary material

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor

After rechecking the manuscript and the authors' replys I think current revision can be undweprossed for publishing. 

 

Thanks

Back to TopTop