Emerging Contaminants and Their Removal from Aqueous Media Using Conventional/Non-Conventional Adsorbents: A Glance at the Relationship between Materials, Processes, and Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript fits within the scope of “water” and is also interesting. However, the following shortcomings have been pointed out and need to be addressed properly for further improvement of the manuscript. They are:

1-      The novelty and practical applicability of this study should be highlighted more in the introduction section. The introduction section could be improved. Author should refer to these articles and several others from reputable journals to enrich and enhance the introduction section of the manuscript. These are:

·       https://doi.org/10.1080/10601325.2020.1840921

·       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.04.044

·       https://doi.org/10.3390/separations9110356

2-     Authors need to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. The novelty of the work alongside the objectives should be highlighted more in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

3-     Most paragraphs in the entire manuscript are either too lengthy or too short. Kindly consider at least 4 and at most 9 sentences in each paragraph. It is suggested to revise all through the manuscript.

4-     A section should be provided separately for “Outlook”.

5-     The conclusion should be a separate section. The present conclusion is too much and lacks some basic components. It must be re-written in a well-structured manner. It is suggested to re-organize the conclusion section much better to cover a summary of the problem(s), objectives methodology, findings, and recommendation(s).

The article should be modified according to above-said comments and be thoroughly reviewed again before accepting it for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The manuscript fits within the scope of “water” and is also interesting. However, the following shortcomings have been pointed out and need to be addressed properly for further improvement of the manuscript. They are:

1-      The novelty and practical applicability of this study should be highlighted more in the introduction section. The introduction section could be improved. Author should refer to these articles and several others from reputable journals to enrich and enhance the introduction section of the manuscript. These are:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/10601325.2020.1840921
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.04.044
• https://doi.org/10.3390/separations9110356

The introduction was improved, indicating that adsorption is one of the most appropriate processes for the removal of contaminants from wastewater. Some examples of contaminants removed by this process were listed. This information is showed in lines 74-79.

2-     Authors need to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. The novelty of the work alongside the objectives should be highlighted more in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

The information suggested by the reviewer was included in lines 89-100 and in Figure 2, indicating the novelty of the work and the structure of the article. It is indicated that although there is some reviews/research framed in the ECs removal through adsorption processes, there are no bibliographic reviews in which the relationship between the adsorbent material and the technologies in which they could be used. This is a limitation because it is necessary to propose alternatives at full-scale to remove contaminants from wastewater.

Regarding the structure of the article, it is indicated that first, the different types of ECs, their characteristics, concentration in water resources, and toxicity to some species are presented. Subsequently, different conventional/non-conventional adsorbents used in the removal of ECs from aqueous media in batch adsorption processes were described. The adsorbent characteristics (e.g., surface area, porosity, functional groups), and their efficiencies/adsorption capacities in the removal of different ECs are shown.      The limitation of batch adsorption processes is      to volume of treated wastewater/water, then a relationship between the material and filtration/biofiltration technologies      where adsorption processes occur      used in the removal of ECs, under different operational parameters are presented. Finally, the conclusions of the work and the outlooks are presented.

3-     Most paragraphs in the entire manuscript are either too lengthy or too short. Kindly consider at least 4 and at most 9 sentences in each paragraph. It is suggested to revise all through the manuscript.

The document was reviewed, and it was verified that there are between 4 and 9 sentences in each paragraph.

4-     A section should be provided separately for “Outlook”.

The Outlook section (lines 897-913) was placed separately from the concluding remarks (lines 915-948). It is indicated that based on the findings of this bibliographical review, it is essential to continue researching/developing adsorbents that are friendly to the environment, low cost, and available in the local market (to reduce transportation costs and take advantage of resources/value waste), that are biocompatible (for that can be used in biofiltration technologies) and with high efficiencies in the removal of EC. This would imply, for example: i) deepening the modification/regeneration of materials and the synthesis of nanomaterials using environmentally friendly substances; ii) analyzing the technical and economic feasibility of its production/synthesis on an industrial scale, so that its efficiency can be tested in technologies such as filtration/biofiltration. This is to remove contaminants from real wastewater. In addition, it is necessary to deepen into how the presence of several ECs or their coexistence with other contaminants (e.g., metals, dyes, organic matter, nutrients) influences the behavior/efficiency of the adsorbents. Finally, the possible applications that the filter bed/adsorbent material may have once its useful life is over should be investigated, since little or almost nothing has been said about it.

5-     The conclusion should be a separate section. The present conclusion is too much and lacks some basic components. It must be re-written in a well-structured manner. It is suggested to re-organize the conclusion section much better to cover a summary of the problem(s), objectives methodology, findings, and recommendation(s).

The conclusions (concluding remarks) were in a separate section and its structure was modified in such a way that the parts indicated by the reviewer can be observed. The importance of removing EC from the aqueous medium is highlighted, mentioning that adsorption and the technologies in which this process occurs are efficient and low-cost alternatives. In addition, it was indicated that there is no ideal adsorbent to eliminate ECs, due to the variety of characteristics that show this type of contaminant. Despite this, as has been observed in previous studies, when the optimal adsorption conditions are determined (type of adsorbent, particle size/adsorbent dose, contact time, pH), the adsorption capacity of the material increases. Some of the adsorbents analyzed in the study (activated carbon, nanomaterials, industrial waste, agro-industrial residues) are also discussed, indicating some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with their use. Finally, the importance of the material used in filtration/biofiltration technologies and the significance of continuing to search/research alternative materials that can replace conventional materials (sand, gravel) are highlighted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Emerging Contaminants including Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Steroid hormones, chemical substances and Microplastics were reviewed in this manuscript. It is very interesting and frontier. traditional method and materials using for treating these emerging contaminants have been Systematically reviewed. Contaminants of Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Steroid hormones and chemical substances mainly exist in water in the form of small molecules, but Contaminants of Microplastics exists in water in the form of macromolecules. So, the particularity of microplastics and its treatment methods should be further elaborated.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Emerging Contaminants including Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Steroid hormones, chemical substances and Microplastics were reviewed in this manuscript. It is very interesting and frontier. traditional method and materials using for treating these emerging contaminants have been Systematically reviewed. Contaminants of Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Steroid hormones, and chemical substances mainly exist in water in the form of small molecules, but Contaminants of Microplastics exists in water in the form of macromolecules. So, the particularity of microplastics and its treatment methods should be further elaborated.

Lines 259-268 indicate the most used methods for the removal of microplastics. Indicating that they are physical (sedimentation, membrane filtration), chemical (photocatalytic oxidation, coagulation, ozonation), and biological methods (conventional activated sludge systems, activated sludge systems + membrane bioreactor, microorganisms’ biodegradation). The use of materials is also essential in the elimination of this type of EC, mainly through magnetic separation. Nanomaterials such as magnetic carbon nanotubes and magnetite have been used efficiently, Shia et al. (2022) removed polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyethylene terephthalate (size: 200–900 μm) reaching efficiencies between 62.8 and 86.9 %. The removal efficiency was influenced by the type/size of the polymer. However, adsorption was also used in the microplastics removal, some studies performed using batch adsorption processes are presented in Table 5 (removal of polystyrene using 3D Graphene oxide and Chitin+GO+ O-C₃N₄ composite).

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript, in general, presents an interesting proposal. However, there is a lack of objectivity in the choice and processing of data. There are several works published in 2021-2023 that would be important for such a review and are not mentioned, such as 10.3390/ma14226820 and 10.1016/j.cej.2022.139943; authors should prioritize current work.

Please, insert a final paragraph in the introduction explaining the basis used for choosing the works that will be investigated in the review;

Please enter if the information is worldwide or for a specific country/region. Line 159;

Section 3.3.4 must appear before section 3.3.1. Since, many times, the synthesis of biochar is a probable step towards Agricultural/agro-industrial residues;

In section 3.3.5 the work " 10.1007/s13762-022-04215-7 " should be cited and the sentence on lines 439-444 should be corrected.

The authors must critically position themselves regarding the analyzed adsorption articles. Reuse, fixed bed analysis and high adsorption capacities (which are not found in real effluents); The review should provide an overview of the analyzed works, and, at the moment, it only brings information that can be found in the main search tool. I strongly advise that there be a restriction on the works used (2021-2023), since the theme is very broad, making it difficult to select the manuscripts.

Author Response

Reviewer #3: The manuscript, in general, presents an interesting proposal. However, there is a lack of objectivity in the choice and processing of data. There are several works published in 2021-2023 that would be important for such a review and are not mentioned, such as 10.3390/ma14226820 and 10.1016/j.cej.2022.139943; authors should prioritize current work.

We appreciate the reviewer's comments and due to the importance of the suggested articles, both were cited in the manuscript. The first one in Table 2 and line 319, and the second one in Table 2 and in lines 705-709 and 714-716.

Please, insert a final paragraph in the introduction explaining the basis used for choosing the works that will be investigated in the review.

The requested information was included in lines 99-102, indicating that review/research articles on conventional and non-conventional materials published in the last 10 years were analyzed. However, for some materials reviewed, very little information was found, so the search criteria were extended to articles published in the last 20 years.

Please enter if the information is worldwide or for a specific country/region. Line 159;

It was clarified that the data on the production of surfactants is worldwide (line 193).

Section 3.3.4 must appear before section 3.3.1. Since, many times, the synthesis of biochar is a probable step towards Agricultural/agro-industrial residues.

The change suggested by the reviewer was made.

In section 3.3.5 the work " 10.1007/s13762-022-04215-7 " should be cited and the sentence on lines 439-444 should be corrected.

The information from the paper suggested by the reviewer was added both in section 3.3.5 and Table 4.

The authors must critically position themselves regarding the analyzed adsorption articles. Reuse, fixed bed analysis and high adsorption capacities (which are not found in real effluents); The review should provide an overview of the analyzed works, and, at the moment, it only brings information that can be found in the main search tool. I strongly advise that there be a restriction on the works used (2021-2023), since the theme is very broad, making it difficult to select the manuscripts.

The discussion requested by the reviewer was included in lines 705-734. Indicating the parameters that influence the adsorption process, the mechanisms that occur in the removal of ECs, the regeneration/reuse of adsorbents and the use of materials in the fixed bed columns.

Although the reviewer is correct in the number of topics published, one of the objectives of the review was to identify most adsorbents used on the ECs removal. So, it was necessary to extend the publication time (as mentioned previously) to find the required information. The least found and oldest information refers to non-conventional inorganic materials. Despite this, we have decided to post this information since these materials have proven to be efficient in removing several contaminants and are also low-cost.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article titled Emerging Contaminants and Their Removal Using Conventional

and unconventional adsorbents: A look at the relationship between materials, processes and technologies is interesting and within the scope of the journal. Below I present some suggestions to improve the presentation of the work and to be accepted for publication.

English needs to be revised.

The authors should further discuss the mechanisms and parameters that interfere with the adsorption capacity.

The conclusion must be summarized containing only the main results obtained in the study.

For a better complementation of the discussions, I suggest adding the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107798

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102988

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.129900

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-022-03528-4

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.141033

I suggest the authors build a topic talking about the toxicology of emerging contaminants for human and animal health and the environment, as well as the articles suggested above.

Before concluding, build a topic describing future prospects and challenges for this area of science.

Author Response

Reviewer #4: The article titled Emerging Contaminants and Their Removal Using Conventional and unconventional adsorbents: A look at the relationship between materials, processes and technologies is interesting and within the scope of the journal. Below I present some suggestions to improve the presentation of the work and to be accepted for publication.

English needs to be revised.

English was exhaustively revised.

The authors should further discuss the mechanisms and parameters that interfere with the adsorption capacity.

Considering the reviewer's observations, it is indicated in lines 405-719. Explaining: After reviewing a series of adsorbents used in the removal of ECs, it is observed that some parameters that influence the adsorption process are the nature of the adsorbent (morphology, SA, P, functional groups), the adsorbent dose (a higher dose favors adsorption), the contact time (longer contact times do not necessarily favor adsorption), particle size (smaller size favor the adsorption) and pH. pH depends on the isoelectric point of the adsorbent, however, there is no mention of whether the pH modification would be profitable and friendly at real scale. Furthermore, characteristics such as the solubility and lipophilicity of EC influence its removal through adsorption processes. Likewise, it is observed that the removal mechanisms are related to the characteristics/properties/structure of the adsorbent and contaminant. The dominant mechanisms in the removal of ECs are physical interactions such as electrostatic interactions, hydrophobic effect, π-π interactions, hydrogen bonds, etc. However, graphene oxide, silica and some nanocomposites also show chemical interactions such as ion exchange and covalent bonding. Iron oxides also appeared to chelation forces by removing some ECs.

The conclusion must be summarized containing only the main results obtained in the study.

The conclusions were in a separate section and its structure was modified. The importance of removing EC from the aqueous medium is highlighted, mentioning that adsorption and the technologies in which this process occurs are efficient and low-cost alternatives. In addition, it was indicated that there is no ideal adsorbent to eliminate ECs, due to the variety of characteristics that show this type of contaminant. Despite this, as has been observed in previous studies, when the optimal adsorption conditions are determined (type of adsorbent, particle size/adsorbent dose, contact time, pH), the adsorption capacity of the material increases. Some of the adsorbents analyzed in the study (activated carbon, nanomaterials, industrial waste, agro-industrial residues) are also discussed, indicating some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with their use. Finally, the importance of the material used in filtration/biofiltration technologies and the significance of continuing to search/research alternative materials that can replace conventional materials (sand, gravel) are highlighted.

For a better complementation of the discussions, I suggest adding the following studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107798

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102988

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.129900

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-022-03528-4

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.141033

Articles suggested by the reviewer were included in lines: 74-79, 155-157, 709-716, 844-846, 870-873 and in Table 4. However, the paper (4) in which chrome was adsorbed was not included because it is not a free article, and more than the abstract could not be reviewed.

I suggest the authors build a topic talking about the toxicology of emerging contaminants for human and animal health and the environment, as well as the articles suggested above.

To the information already presented, some examples of toxicity of the ECs studied in the documents suggested by the reviewer were added (lines 155-157 and 209-210).

Before concluding, build a topic describing  future prospects and challenges for this area of science.

The Outlook section (lines 897-913) was placed separately from the concluding remarks (lines 915-948). It is indicated that based on the findings of this bibliographical review, it is essential to continue researching/developing adsorbents that are friendly to the environment, low cost, and available in the local market (to reduce transportation costs and take advantage of resources/value waste), that are biocompatible (for that can be used in biofiltration technologies) and with high efficiencies in the removal of EC. This would imply, for example: i) deepening the modification/regeneration of materials and the synthesis of nanomaterials using environmentally friendly substances; ii) analyzing the technical and economic feasibility of its production/synthesis on an industrial scale, so that its efficiency can be tested in technologies such as filtration/biofiltration. This is to remove contaminants from real wastewater. In addition, it is necessary to deepen into how the presence of several ECs or their coexistence with other contaminants (e.g., metals, dyes, organic matter, nutrients) influences the behavior/efficiency of the adsorbents. Finally, the possible applications that the filter bed/adsorbent material may have once its useful life is over should be investigated, since little or almost nothing has been said about it.

Reviewer 5 Report

The presented manuscript includes the study of emerging contaminants and their removal using conventional and non-conventional adsorbents: a glance at the relationship between materials, processes, and technologies. Paper fit to the Water journal.

I think that the paper should be reconsidered and partly rewritten. The results of the work are presented on a good level but some questions and weak points should be mentioned.

1. Title. The authors have to clarify the title and add “… in water media…” because they described the use of adsorbents just in water media and not in air or soil.

2. Please add 2-3 main objectives of the paper at the end of the Introduction section.

3. Title of section 2 sounds too loud compared with its content. Based on my view “classification is absent”, characteristics and properties almost absent, etc.

4. “Industrial and chemical substances” – please reconsider and correct. “Industrial” and “chemical” mustn’t be present in one place in terms of comparison, because they are from different parts of classification.

5. Please, be careful in classifications and used terms!!!

6. Subsect. 2.5. Is this part “microplastic” really actual for our paper title?! I don’t think so. As well as the next “Filtration” section. The same for “vermin-” and the use of “microorganisms”.

7.  The paper is too long (reasonable for this topic), but quite simple. Contain a lot of pages but the really important aspects are “process and technol.” Are not covered. E.g. regeneration of spent adsorbent, its reuse, and final utilization.

8. Would be much better to provide the overall schemes of all classifications used in your paper. Also, I should mention a lack of comparative analysis.

9. Please, up to date the references for the 2022 and 2023 years to prove the novelty and actuality. Now you haven’t references for 2022 and 2023. Just a few for 2021.

Author Response

Reviewer #5: The presented manuscript includes the study of emerging contaminants and their removal using conventional and non-conventional adsorbents: a glance at the relationship between materials, processes, and technologies. Paper fit to the Water journal.

I think that the paper should be reconsidered and partly rewritten. The results of the work are presented on a good level, but some questions and weak points should be mentioned.

1. Title. The authors have to clarify the title and add “… in water media…” because they described the use of adsorbents just in water media and not in air or soil.

The title was modified according to the suggestions made by the reviewer, leaving: Emerging contaminants and their removal from aqueous media using conventional/non-conventional adsorbents: A glance at the relationship between materials, processes, and technologies.

2. Please add 2-3 main objectives of the paper at the end of the Introduction section.

Taking the reviewer's comment into account, the objectives of the review were incorporated into the final paragraph of the introduction (lines 86-89). Being these i) identify the different adsorbents used in the removal of ECs, ii) know the mechanisms involved in the removal of ECs and iii) analyze the relationship between the adsorbent material and the different technologies in which it can be used.

3. Title of section 2 sounds too loud compared with its content. Based on my view “classification is absent”, characteristics and properties almost absent, etc.

The title of section 2 was changed by Characteristics, concentration, and toxicity of some ECs in water bodies.

4. “Industrial and chemical substances” – please reconsider and correct. “Industrial” and “chemical” mustn’t be present in one place in terms of comparison, because they are from different parts of classification.

According to the comment of the reviewer, the subtitle was changed to Miscellaneous ECs since some data on different substances are presented.

5. Please, be careful in classifications and used terms!!!

The reviewer's comment has been considered and a revision of the entire document was carried out to avoid this error.

6. Subsect. 2.5. Is this part “microplastic” really actual for our paper title?! I don’t think so. As well as the next “Filtration” section. The same for “vermin-” and the use of “microorganisms”.

In the case of microplastics, it is important to mention that removal studies through adsorption processes are still limited, but they do exist. Some of these data were placed in lines 260-268 and in Table 5, indicating the material used (3D Graphene oxide and Chitin+GO+O-C₃N₄ composite), the microplastic (removal of polystyrene and polystyrene derivatives), the conditions used in the adsorption process and the results obtained. With this, the presence of the topic of microplastics in our review can already be justified.

Regarding the other issues indicated by the reviewer, we can comment that the objective of the review is to find a relationship between the material and the technologies in which the adsorption processes occur. The latter being filtration and biofiltration (biofilters, vermifilters, and constructed wetlands). Although currently conventional materials are still used on a full scale (sand, gravel), other materials are being tested in laboratory studies in this type of technology to reduce costs. Among the materials used are anthracite, forest residues (sawdust) and agro-industrial residues (peanut shells). Likewise, in our previous studies (Performance of wood chips/peanut shells biofilters used to remove organic matter from domestic wastewater; Improvement of organic matter and nutrient removal from domestic wastewater by using intermittent hydraulic rates on earthworm–microorganism biofilters) we have shown that the presence of organisms such as earthworms, plants and microorganisms favors the efficiency and hydraulic functioning of the biofilter. In these systems, the material is essential since it fulfills other functions in addition to adsorbing contaminants. Currently, we have some interesting data obtained in biofilter mesocosms with other adsorbent materials in which we removed some ECs, and which we hope to publish soon. For these reasons, we believe that these issues should be included in the review.

7. The paper is too long (reasonable for this topic), but quite simple. Contain a lot of pages but the really important aspects are “process and technol.” Are not covered. E.g. regeneration of spent adsorbent, its reuse, and final utilization.

While the issues noted by the reviewer are very important, the focus of the paper was not to assess these issues. However, we have placed them in the outlooks and in lines .

8. Would be much better to provide the overall schemes of all classifications used in your paper. Also, I should mention a lack of comparative analysis.

The scheme of all classifications used in our paper was placed in Figure 2.

A comparative analysis has been added in several sections of the manuscript (lines: 269-282, 352-371, 416-422, 510-518, 674-690, 874-887), in which a comparison is established between the information of the different materials presented. Emphasis is placed on the parameters that influence the adsorption process and the mechanisms that occur in the elimination of ECs (lines 705-719).

9. Please, up to date the references for the 2022 and 2023 years to prove the novelty and actuality. Now you haven’t references for 2022 and 2023. Just a few for 2021.

Considering the importance of the reviewer's comment, some references from the years 2022 and 2023 were added, and some previous references were eliminated. Some of these papers are:

10. N. Catherine, K.-H. Tan, Y. Shih, R. Doong, B. Manu, and J. Ding, “Surface interaction of tetrabromobisphenol A, bisphenol A and phenol with graphene-based materials in water: Adsorption mechanism and thermodynamic effects,” J. Hazard. Mater. Adv., vol. 9, no. December 2022, p. 100227, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100227.
11. H. Birniwa et al., “Polymer-Based Nano-Adsorbent for the Removal of Lead Ions : Kinetics Studies and Optimization by Response Surface Methodology,” Separations, vol. 9, p. 356, 2022.
12. E. Almeida-Naranjo, B. Morillo, M. B. Aldás, N. Garcés, A. Debut, and V. H. Guerrero, “Zinc removal from synthetic waters using magnetite/graphene oxide composites,” Remediation, no. November 2022, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.1002/rem.21743.
13. Sellaoui et al., “Exploitation of Bauhinia forficata residual fruit powder for the adsorption of cationic dyes,” Chem. Eng. J., vol. 456, no. November 2022, p. 141033, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.141033.
14. Diniz, D. Gasparini Fernandes Cunha, and S. Rath, “Adsorption of recalcitrant contaminants of emerging concern onto activated carbon: A laboratory and pilot-scale study,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 325, no. PA, p. 116489, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116489.
15. Shi, X. Zhang, W. Gao, Y. Zhang, and D. He, “Removal of microplastics from water by magnetic nano-Fe3O4,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 802, p. 149838, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149838.
16. Yanan et al., “Adsorption of paracetamol and ketoprofenon activated charcoal prepared from the residue of the fruit of Butiacapitate: Experiments and theoretical interpretations,” Chem. Eng. J., vol. 454, no. November 2022, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.139943
17. Georgin, D. S. P. Franco, K. Da Boit Martinello, E. C. Lima, and L. F. O. Silva, “A review of the toxicology presence and removal of ketoprofen through adsorption technology,” J. Environ. Chem. Eng., vol. 10, no. 3, p. 107798, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.107798.
18. S. P. Franco, J. Georgin, E. C. Lima, and L. F. O. Silva, “Advances made in removing paraquat herbicide by adsorption technology: A review,” J. Water Process Eng., vol. 49, no. June, p. 102988, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102988.
19. Georgin et al., “Effective adsorption of harmful herbicide diuron onto novel activated carbon from Hovenia dulcis,” Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp., vol. 654, no. June, p. 129900, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.129900.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been responded to point-by-point by the author, and I suggest that the manuscript be accepted.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors made all the requested corrections and modifications so the article can be accepted for publication.

Sincerely, Dr. Georgin.

Reviewer 5 Report

all questions were addressed