From Nanomaterial Performance to System Integration: Advancing Realistic Wastewater Treatment Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

       The “From Nanomaterial Performance to System Integration: Advancing Realistic Wastewater Treatment Technologies” is a timely, well-researched, and critically minded review that effectively challenges hype in environmental nanotechnology. With tighter editing to reduce repetition, more quantitative depth in tables/examples, and sharper actionable recommendations, it would be even more impactful for guiding future research and policy. It serves as a strong call to move beyond "promising" lab results toward rigorous, context-aware engineering. I recommend a minor revision.

• Abstract is too long, make it concise focusing the novelty and outcomes of the research.
• Strong systems-level reframing, but overuses stark "lab vs. reality" dichotomies that oversimplify nuanced trade-offs.
• Add suitable literature likedoi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2024.125503,doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2025.135317 to enhance the strength of the introduction, the current introduction is very weak.
• Excellent coverage of matrix effects, but Tables 1 & 2 lack sufficient quantitative data and specific performance benchmarks.
• Good discussion on risks and transformations, yet environmental fate modeling and comparative risk-benefit analysis remain shallow.
• AI/intelligent systems section is forward-looking but overly speculative given limited real-matrix validation and generalizability challenges.
• Resource recovery coverage is aspirational but under-quantified with few concrete LCA, yield, or techno-economic examples.
• Noticeable repetition across sections reduces readability; strong rhetorical language occasionally undermines objectivity.
• Solid contribution via functional taxonomy, but could better acknowledge prior reviews and more clearly state its unique novelty.
• Evaluation framework is useful, but practical recommendations for researchers, industry, and policymakers lack specificity and prioritization.
• I suggest that authors must provide clear and concise future directions to the researchers and scientists to overcome the challenges in practical ability of the nanomaterials for real-world wastewater treatment.

Author Response

Reviewer 1#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The “From Nanomaterial Performance to System Integration: Advancing Realistic Wastewater Treatment Technologies” is a timely, well-researched, and critically minded review that effectively challenges hype in environmental nanotechnology. With tighter editing to reduce repetition, more quantitative depth in tables/examples, and sharper actionable recommendations, it would be even more impactful for guiding future research and policy. It serves as a strong call to move beyond "promising" lab results toward rigorous, context-aware engineering. I recommend a minor revision.

Response: many thanks for your time and valuable comments

• Abstract is too long, make it concise focusing the novelty and outcomes of the research.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We agree that a more concise abstract enhances readability and sharpens the focus on the manuscript's core novelty and outcomes. We have thoroughly revised the abstract, reducing its length by nearly 40% while preserving its essential contributions. Specifically, the revised abstract clearly contrasts our systems-oriented, function-driven perspective against conventional material-centric reviews (novelty) and highlights the proposed multidimensional evaluation framework and integration roadmap for bridging the lab-to-field translational gap (outcomes)

• Strong systems-level reframing, but overuses stark "lab vs. reality" dichotomies that oversimplify nuanced trade-offs.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable insight. We acknowledge that while contrasting laboratory results with real-world operations helps frame the core problem, relying on an oversimplified binary distinction can mask the highly nuanced trade-offs (such as localized synergies, varying degrees of matrix tolerance, and intermediate performance under semi-controlled conditions). To address this, we have systematically refined the manuscript's tone to transition from a strict dichotomy to a spectrum-based analysis of these engineering trade-offs, ensuring a more balanced and realistic scientific discussion without altering our core systems-level arguments

• Add suitable literature like doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2024.125503 ,doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2025.135317 to enhance the strength of the introduction, the current introduction is very weak.

Response: Thanks, the suggested to papers are cited in the first paragraph in introduction section

• Excellent coverage of matrix effects, but Tables 1 & 2 lack sufficient quantitative data and specific performance benchmarks.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback on our matrix effects coverage. Regarding the tables, we respectfully clarify that their current format is a deliberate choice aligned with the review's systems-oriented, function-driven perspective.  Traditional material-centric reviews already abundantly catalog isolated bench-scale numbers (like $mg/g$ or removal percentages). Because those quantitative metrics are highly variable and context-dependent, listing them out of context can be misleading and contradicts our paper's core objective: highlighting that ideal bench numbers rarely translate directly to the field. Tables 1 and 2 are intentionally designed as conceptual mapping tools to evaluate the mechanistic behavior, fouling limits, and interfacial trade-offs of technologies under realistic operational stresses. Adding isolated laboratory data points would dilute this systems-level focus. The specific quantitative variations caused by real matrices are already extensively discussed within the main text of Sections 2, 4, and 5. We hope the reviewer supports maintaining this conceptual clarity.

• Good discussion on risks and transformations, yet environmental fate modeling and comparative risk-benefit analysis remain shallow.

Response: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the depth of our discussion on environmental risks and nanomaterial transformations. Regarding the request to expand the sections on environmental fate modeling and comparative risk-benefit analysis, we would like to respectfully clarify the scope of our manuscript. The primary objective of this review is to transition the environmental nanotechnology paradigm from a material-centric focus to a system-integrated, function-driven engineering approach within the wastewater treatment plant itself. While environmental fate modeling and comprehensive life-cycle risk-benefit analyses are undoubtedly important, expanding deeply into these external environmental compartments would expand the paper's scope too broadly. Doing so would risk scattering the core concentration of the paper away from its main point: evaluating the immediate operational bottlenecks, matrix thermodynamics, and hybrid engineering interfaces affecting treatment systems.  To maintain a sharp, impactful focus on actual wastewater systems while still addressing the reviewer's point, we ensure that Section 10 and Section 11 serve as targeted entry points—highlighting how transformations inside the plant directly dictate subsequent ecological risks. We hope the reviewer agrees that keeping this tight focus preserves the conceptual integrity and engineering utility of the review.

• AI/intelligent systems section is forward-looking but overly speculative given limited real-matrix validation and generalizability challenges.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful critique. We completely agree that the application of AI and digital twins in authentic wastewater treatment faces significant real-matrix validation and generalizability challenges due to data stochasticity and rapid sensor passivation. However, the inclusion of Section 7 (Intelligent Treatment Systems) is intentionally designed to be prospective. Because static nano-interventions consistently fail to adapt to dynamic, real-world effluent fluctuations, integrating digital intelligence represents a critical, necessary frontier for next-generation environmental engineering. To ensure we do not sound overly speculative, we explicitly address these data-driven limitations within the text, emphasizing that contemporary predictive models are heavily bottlenecked by their reliance on idealized laboratory datasets. We believe that presenting this digital convergence as a future roadmap—while transparently outlining its current validation bottlenecks—accurately reflects the systems-level scope of Water Journal without misleading the reader

• Resource recovery coverage is aspirational but under-quantified with few concrete LCA, yield, or techno-economic examples.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the critical importance of life-cycle assessments (LCA), extraction yields, and techno-economic analyses (TEA) in resource recovery paradigms. We agree that these metrics are highly essential for concrete field scaling. However, we respectfully clarify that our decision to keep this section focused on a conceptual framework rather than a highly specific, quantitative economic ledger is deliberate. Because nano-enabled resource recovery (such as selective nutrient extraction or precious metal harvesting) is an emerging domain, currently available LCA and yield data in the literature are highly variable, site-specific, and heavily dependent on specific regional economic assumptions and artificial influent baseline conditions.

Providing isolated, unstandardized yield metrics or specific dollar-per-cubic-meter cost estimations out of context would deviate from our core objective: providing a generalizable, systems-level integration roadmap for Water Journal. Rather than overloading the section with highly fragmented, non-comparable numbers, we intentionally outline the qualitative operational mechanisms and technological trade-offs necessary to build viable recovery streams. The broader methodology for incorporating these parameters is explicitly built into our proposed Multidimensional Evaluation Framework in Section 11, where TEA and environmental safety are given equal structural weight alongside technical efficiency. We hope the reviewer supports keeping this strategic focus.

• Noticeable repetition across sections reduces readability; strong rhetorical language occasionally undermines objectivity.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this excellent editorial critique. We agree that maintaining a strictly objective, academic tone and avoiding redundant phrasing is essential for a high-quality review. To address this, we have systematically audited the manuscript to eliminate repetitive summaries at the ends of overlapping sections (such as the transitions between Sections 2, 4, and 5). Furthermore, we have carefully modulated the prose to replace overly strong or dramatic rhetorical language (e.g., "glaring discrepancy," "profound failure," "completely blind") with precise, objective engineering terms (e.g., "operational variance," "systemic limitations," "unaccounted factors"). This structural and tonal refinement significantly enhances the manuscript's readability and scientific neutrality while leaving our core systems-level arguments intact.

• Solid contribution via functional taxonomy, but could better acknowledge prior reviews and more clearly state its unique novelty.

Response: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the value of our functional taxonomy and for this insightful suggestion. We agree that explicitly contrasting our manuscript with existing literature highlights our unique contribution. To address this, we have revised the introduction and the overview of Section 2 to clearly delineate our work from prior classical reviews. While excellent previous reviews have comprehensively cataloged nanomaterial synthesis pathways, maximum theoretical adsorption capacities, and idealized pollutant removal kinetics, they often treat the nanomaterial as an isolated entity. In contrast, the unique novelty of our review lies in its systemic, function-driven framework that shifts the focus from what the nanomaterial is to how it operates dynamically within a complex, multi-component engineering matrix. We have added explicit text and a comparative summary statement to clearly anchor our novelty within the context of prior foundational literature.

• Evaluation framework is useful, but practical recommendations for researchers, industry, and policymakers lack specificity and prioritization.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this highly constructive critique. We agree that translating a conceptual evaluation framework into practical application requires specific, prioritized, and stakeholder-targeted recommendations. To address this, we have significantly expanded the final section of the manuscript (Section 12: Conclusions and Future Outlook). We have introduced a highly structured, prioritized action roadmap explicitly tailored for three core stakeholder groups: researchers, industrial engineers, and policymakers. This roadmap transitions from immediate technical actions (such as standardizing multi-component testing matrices) to long-term regulatory frameworks (such as developing nano-specific water quality boundaries and safety protocols), ensuring the review delivers highly practical and actionable utility.

• I suggest that authors must provide clear and concise future directions to the researchers and scientists to overcome the challenges in practical ability of the nanomaterials for real-world wastewater treatment.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this excellent recommendation. We agree that providing a clear, concise, and actionable set of future research directions is vital for guiding scientists toward overcoming the practical barriers of environmental nanotechnology. To address this, we have added a dedicated, highly focused subsection at the end of the manuscript (Section 12.3: Targeted Future Directions for the Research Community). This section avoids vague generalizations and instead outlines four precise, high-priority research frontiers—ranging from material design metrics to standardized testing protocols—that scientists must target to bridge the translational gap between laboratory discovery and robust field-scale operation

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Section 2 and Section 5, the discussion on the inhibitory effects of Natural Organic Matter (NOM) and co-existing anions (Cl^-, SO4^2-) is qualitatively accurate but requires a more rigorous chemical engineering foundation. The authors should critically evaluate how the selective active sites of advanced nanomaterials can be preserved. Discussing surface modification strategies-such as hydrophobic tuning or targeted molecular imprinting-would provide readers with practical engineering solutions rather than just listing deactivation mechanisms.

Section 4 and Section 8 highlight the importance of material regeneration and reuse. To maximize the utility of this review, the authors need to critically address the cumulative loss of catalytic mass during cyclical backwashing or chemical elution. A brief discussion on the aging mechanisms of immobilized nano-catalysts (e.g., lattice leaching, irreversible mechanical abrasion, or surface passivation, etc.) and their exact impact on long-term continuous-flow lifespan would significantly strengthen the practical relevance of the review.

Section 7 introduces machine learning models and digital twin architectures as a major tool for dynamic fouling control and dosage optimization. While forward-looking, this narrative lacks operational realism. Nanosensors deployed in raw municipal or industrial wastewater are highly prone to rapid biological masking and chemical scaling, which destabilizes real-time data inputs. The authors should explicitly discuss the challenges of sensor calibration, input signal drift, and the high energy and computational costs associated with continuous edge-computing in treatment plants.

It correctly identifies that biological flocs and hybrid systems eventually become sinks for unreacted or escaped nanomaterials. However, the review stops short of providing a clear downstream perspective. The authors should expand their conclusion or regulatory section to discuss the specific disposal and management pathways for this nano-laden secondary sludge. Mentioning the limitations of traditional land application due to soil ecotoxicity and evaluating advanced thermal treatment or safe immobilization frameworks would broaden the scope of the paper.

The authors should conduct a thorough final proofreading of the inline equations and chemical symbols. Ensuring strict consistency in superscript and subscript notation for complex radical species (e.g., hydroxyl and superoxide radical representations) and multi-valent metal ions throughout the text will enhance the technical precision of the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 2#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Section 2 and Section 5, the discussion on the inhibitory effects of Natural Organic Matter (NOM) and co-existing anions (Cl^-, SO4^2-) is qualitatively accurate but requires a more rigorous chemical engineering foundation. The authors should critically evaluate how the selective active sites of advanced nanomaterials can be preserved. Discussing surface modification strategies-such as hydrophobic tuning or targeted molecular imprinting-would provide readers with practical engineering solutions rather than just listing deactivation mechanisms.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s excellent technical insight. We agree that introducing proactive chemical engineering strategies to preserve active sites adds valuable balance to our discussion on deactivation mechanisms. To maintain the core focus of this manuscript on systems-level engineering and operational frameworks—rather than shifting the scope too deeply into highly specialized materials chemistry synthesis—we have added a concise, high-impact paragraph at the end of Section 5.2. This addition concisely introduces the thermodynamic and steric principles of hydrophobic tuning, electrostatic shielding, and molecular imprinting as engineered solutions for active site preservation, providing readers with practical directions without altering the broader structural scope of the review.

This part was added to the revised MS:

To mitigate these deactivation pathways under authentic operational conditions, recent chemical engineering strategies focus on proactively preserving active interfacial sites through surface architecture tuning [105]. Rather than relying on static materials, systems can utilize hydrophobic modification (e.g., organosilane grafting) to create a thermodynamic barrier that repels bulky hydrophilic natural organic matter (NOM) while allowing target micropollutants to pass. Similarly, tailoring the localized surface charge to induce electrostatic shielding can minimize the competitive scavenging of background divalent anions [106]. Finally, integrating targeted molecular imprinting on the nanomaterial matrix offers a highly selective engineering solution; creating rigid, three-dimensional cavities matching the precise spatial geometry of target contaminants allows active sites to remain shielded from both steric fouling by macromolecular organic fractions and competitive coordination by inorganic ions [107].

 

Section 4 and Section 8 highlight the importance of material regeneration and reuse. To maximize the utility of this review, the authors need to critically address the cumulative loss of catalytic mass during cyclical backwashing or chemical elution. A brief discussion on the aging mechanisms of immobilized nano-catalysts (e.g., lattice leaching, irreversible mechanical abrasion, or surface passivation, etc.) and their exact impact on long-term continuous-flow lifespan would significantly strengthen the practical relevance of the review.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this exceptional, engineering-focused recommendation. We completely agree that evaluating the structural, mechanical, and chemical aging mechanisms of immobilized catalysts/composites is vital for determining their true continuous-flow lifespan, structural stability, and economic viability. To address this thoroughly without causing a disruptive reordering of our existing bibliography, we have integrated a dedicated, chemically rigorous paragraph into Section 8 (Resource Recovery) immediately following the discussion on long-term continuous-flow operations. This addition systematically categorizes mass-loss pathways into localized lattice leaching, mechanical abrasion from hydrodynamic shear/backwashing, and interfacial surface passivation

This part was added to the revised MS:

Transitioning from batch-scale recyclability to continuous-flow viability requires a rigorous assessment of the chronic aging mechanisms that govern immobilized nano-catalysts. During extended operational cycles, the cumulative loss of active catalytic mass proceeds via three distinct degradation pathways: chemical, mechanical, and interfacial. Chemically, continuous exposure to aggressive chemical elutions or highly acidic/alkaline wastewater streams triggers localized lattice leaching, where active transition metal ions dissociate from the support matrix into the effluent, causing irreversible loss of catalytic active sites [98]. Mechanically, high-shear environment operations—such as periodic cyclical backwashing or continuous hydrodynamic fluidization—induce severe mechanical abrasion, physically shearing the nano-enabled active layers off their macro-supports. Interfacially, even if the material remains structurally intact, it undergoes chronic surface passivation driven by the irreversible chemisorption of recalcitrant organic fragments and foulants that block pore network accessibility [99]. Ultimately, these coupled aging mechanisms systematically depress the continuous-flow lifespan of the system, transforming a theoretically reusable catalyst into a rapidly degrading material that demands proactive monitoring of effluent metal leaching and frequent media replenishment.

 

Section 7 introduces machine learning models and digital twin architectures as a major tool for dynamic fouling control and dosage optimization. While forward-looking, this narrative lacks operational realism. Nanosensors deployed in raw municipal or industrial wastewater are highly prone to rapid biological masking and chemical scaling, which destabilizes real-time data inputs. The authors should explicitly discuss the challenges of sensor calibration, input signal drift, and the high energy and computational costs associated with continuous edge-computing in treatment plants.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this pragmatic critique regarding the operational challenges of inline sensing hardware, such as bio-masking, chemical scaling, and signal drift. These are indeed the precise real-world bottlenecks that determine whether digital twin architectures succeed or fail in practice.

Response: We would like to gently highlight that this operational realism is a core foundational theme of our entire manuscript and is already heavily covered in the preceding and succeeding sections. The primary objective of Section 7 is to outline the forward-looking conceptual trajectory of intelligent process integration, whereas the severe physical limitations of authentic wastewater matrices are rigorously treated throughout the rest of the paper:

1. On Bio-Masking and Organic Fouling: In Sections 2, 5, and 8, we critically analyze how ubiquitous natural organic matter (NOM) and macromolecular organic fractions induce severe competitive binding and irreversible interfacial fouling.
2. On Chemical Scaling and Corrosive Matrices: In Section 8, we explicitly discuss how real-world industrial and municipal effluents present extreme pH fluctuations and highly corrosive matrices that deteriorate separation factors and cause irreversible fouling.
3. On Lifespan and Continuous-Flow Failures: In Sections 5 and 8, we explicitly address the "translational failures" and risks of system degradation over long-term, continuous-flow operations.

Because a technically exhaustive breakdown of sensor electrode calibration, signal drift matrices, and edge-computing thermal architecture falls within the highly specialized domain of cyber-physical systems engineering, adding it explicitly to Section 7 would dilute the paper's focus on material-matrix treatment dynamics. Since the real-world operational bottlenecks of fouling, scaling, and matrix interference are already thoroughly established across our manuscript, we have maintained Section 7 as a conceptual overview of smart system capabilities. We hope the reviewer agrees that this maintains a balanced, system-level scope.

It correctly identifies that biological flocs and hybrid systems eventually become sinks for unreacted or escaped nanomaterials. However, the review stops short of providing a clear downstream perspective. The authors should expand their conclusion or regulatory section to discuss the specific disposal and management pathways for this nano-laden secondary sludge. Mentioning the limitations of traditional land application due to soil ecotoxicity and evaluating advanced thermal treatment or safe immobilization frameworks would broaden the scope of the paper.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this highly insightful and practical recommendation. We agree that a comprehensive "downstream perspective" on the ultimate fate of nano-laden secondary sludge is essential for completing the closed-loop narrative of the review.

To address this, we have expanded Section 12 (Targeted Future Directions for the Research Community) by adding a dedicated fifth research pillar that explicitly outlines the ecological limitations of traditional land disposal alongside advanced thermal and engineering immobilization solutions. To effectively operationalize the proposed multidimensional evaluation framework, specific and prioritized actions must be taken across the research, industrial, and regulatory sectors:

• For Researchers (Priority: High — Immediate Action): Shift experimental designs away from single-solute, idealized batch systems. Research efforts must prioritize the standardization of synthetic "real-matrix" testing cocktails that explicitly include realistic concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), competing background ions, and surfactant foulants to establish baseline matrix tolerance early in the material development phase.
• For Industrial Engineers (Priority: Medium — Mid-term Action): Focus on hybrid system integration rather than isolated nano-units. Priority should be given to piloting nano-enabled configurations as polishing stages or localized modular attachments downstream of existing secondary treatments (e.g., membrane bioreactors), thereby protecting active nano-interfaces from heavy initial organic loading and extending material lifespans.
• For Policymakers and Regulators (Priority: Critical — Long-term Framework): Establish clear, nano-specific environmental safety protocols and standardization frameworks. Regulatory bodies should incentivize the commercial adoption of sustainable nanotechnology by funding large-scale, collaborative validation facilities while simultaneously developing transparent guidelines for the monitoring, containment, and circular recovery of spent engineered nanomaterials.

Targeted Future Directions for the Research Community

To systematically overcome the translational bottlenecks facing nano-enabled wastewater treatment, future scientific inquiries should prioritize the following four interconnected research pillars:

1. Transition from "High-Capacity" to "High-Selectivity" and "Matrix-Tolerance" Design: Material design paradigms must shift from maximizing absolute contaminant uptake in distilled water to optimizing structural tolerance against competitive background matrices. Future work should focus on engineering molecularly imprinted cavities, protective anti-fouling coatings, and targeted defect sites that preferentially capture target pollutants (e.g., specific micropollutants or nutrients) even in the presence of high concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM) and co-existing background ions.
2. Standardization of Complex, Multi-Component Testing Frameworks: To eliminate the idealized bench-scale reporting bias, the research community must establish and adopt standardized, baseline testing matrices that accurately simulate authentic secondary or tertiary effluents. Evaluating new nanomaterials under standardized, challenging chemical matrices early in the laboratory validation phase will ensure realistic, reproducible, and comparable performance benchmarks.
3. Development of Regenerable and Regenerative Material Architectures: Long-term operational viability depends entirely on material lifespan. Future research should prioritize the synthesis of robust, mechanically stable composite materials that can undergo multiple, low-cost, in-situ regeneration cycles without losing structural integrity or releasing secondary chemical byproducts into the treated effluent.
4. Mechanistic Modeling of Nano-Bio Interfaces and Long-Term Transformations: Intensive research is required to map out the dynamic physical, chemical, and biological transformations (such as sulfidation, oxidation, and biomolecule corona formation) that nanomaterials undergo when exposed to complex microbial ecosystems. Understanding these aging mechanisms will allow scientists to proactively design materials that maintain their functional properties while minimizing long-term toxicity and ecological risks.

The authors should conduct a thorough final proofreading of the inline equations and chemical symbols. Ensuring strict consistency in superscript and subscript notation for complex radical species (e.g., hydroxyl and superoxide radical representations) and multi-valent metal ions throughout the text will enhance the technical precision of the manuscript.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this excellent quality-control recommendation. Technical precision in chemical notation is vital for a high-impact review. We have conducted a thorough, line-by-line editorial proofreading of all chemical symbols, multi-valent metal ions, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) across the entire manuscript and its figures. Every inline equation and radical representation has been standardized to follow strict IUPAC formatting conventions (e.g., ensuring radicals display both their unpaired electron dot and charge correctly, and that multi-valent ions consistently use superscripted valence signs).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the reviewer comments satisfactorily and significantly improved the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for your support

Here your comment and our response:

Comments of editor on Reviewer 1 comments need to fulfill.

I suggest that authors must provide clear and concise future directions to the researchers and scientists to overcome the challenges in practical ability of the nanomaterials for real-world wastewater treatment.

Response: We completely agree with the reviewer's valuable insight. To ensure the review provides a pragmatic, actionable roadmap rather than just a theoretical critique, we have extensively expanded and structured Section 12 ("Future Convergence").

Specifically, we have added:

A prioritized action framework explicitly broken down by stakeholder sector (High Priority for Researchers, Medium Priority for Industrial Engineers, and Critical Priority for Policymakers/Regulators).

Four interconnected research pillars (Matrix-Tolerance Design, Standardization of Testing Frameworks, Regenerable Architectures, and Nano-Bio Interfacial Modeling) to guide future scientific inquiries

Hoping our corrections will meet your opinion,

Many thanks again,