Lignocellulose-Based Biosorbents for the Removal of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) from Water: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reviews the current research status of biological adsorption and discusses the research results of adsorption of biological agents to remove CECs from water. The author accurately describes the relevant concepts and has a comprehensive knowledge of this field. However, the structural framework of the paper is simple and the logical correlation is not clear, which does not achieve the effect of a full review of this field. This review does not provide a quick and clear understanding of the field for the non-expert reader. At the same time, authors need to have more independent academic views and judgments on the research status and future development trend of this field.

1. Conclusion and Outlook are too simple, and the author lacks independent thinking in this field.

2. The reference of the Introduction is insufficient, and more abundant references are needed to support the research background, e.g. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts 2021, 6 (4), 292-322; Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts 2022, 7 (2), 109-115.

3. Most of the literatures and researches summarized have a certain sense of age, without a clear grasp and cognition of the latest progress in this field, and the research results are not cutting-edge enough.

4. As the author says in the introduction, this review is too brief.

5. In the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the abbreviation of CECs is inconsistent.

6. Graphs are better for expressing information in a paper. The lack of figures in the manuscript makes it difficult for the reader to gain a deep understanding of the field.

7. Please add the summary of relevant studies on extraction methods of biomass and pretreatment measures before adsorption.

8. Add some comparisons between existing scientific hypotheses and popular opinion in the field.

Author Response

We would like to thank to the reviewer for the suggestions to improve our paper.

In the attachment you can find our comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The review covers the use of Lignocellulose-based Biosorbents for the Removal of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) from Water. The work covers examples of lignocellulose-based biosorbents and eg of CECs. Scouring the literature review databases online shows limited information on these important toxicants.

I suggest the author add a standalone section on chemical/physical modifications of these biosorbents.

I also suggest the authors make the table more comprehensive. Add information on best kinetics, best isotherms, thermodynamics parameters, column works (if done) and whether water matrices such as sorptions are done in river or seawater.

Author Response

We would like to thank to the Reviewer for the suggestions to improve our paper.

In the attachment you can find our comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: water-234250

Vesna Vasić, Dragana Kukić and co-authors reported "Lignocellulose-based Biosorbents for the Removal of Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) from Water" Although the topic is interesting, but some important aspects were not performed. Following comments should be addressed before possible consideration for publication in worthy Journal of Water. I believe it will not take a long for the authors to work on this revision. My comments are,

1.      Abstract is not in best wording like “relevant pollutants (toxic substances, dyes, heavy metals, organic substances) from water and wastewater, although various techniques for their removal and/or degradation have been studied and developed”. Abstract should be consist of key points of your work not consist of all other explanations.

2.      Advanced and best method to remove CECs should be mentioned in abstract.

3.       Introduction should be revised, more literature about removal of CECs and some latest adsorbents & degradation materials should be discussed here to enhance the novelty of work like, https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.1998471

4.      Figures related to characterizations of different bio-sorbents, different models results justifying their adsorption capacities and proposed mechanism of sorbents should be included in revised manuscript.

5.      Some more modification like different adsorbents should compare to other removal techniques in this review paper for advancement of paper like, Chemical Physics Letters 805 (2022) 139939.

6.      Schematic graphs of biosorbents with their adsorption method should be presented in graphical form.

7.      More literature should be discussed

8.      There are so many typo grammatical errors in whole manuscript, should be revised by some native speaker and formatting should be checked.

Author Response

We would like to thank to the reviewer for the suggestions to improve our paper.

In the attachment you can find our comments.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript could be accepted now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have added kinetics to Table 3 but did not add information on best isotherms, thermodynamics parameters, column works (if done) and whether water matrices such as sorptions are done in river or seawater, as mentioned in my comment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx