The Application of Hydroxyapatite NPs for Adsorption Antibiotic from Aqueous Solutions: Kinetic, Thermodynamic, and Isotherm Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results are solid. However, the discussions are weak. They should be improved.

Author Response

The authors appreciate reviewer 1.

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors reported that hydroxyapatite nanoparticles as a cost-effective adsorbent was prepared and then utilized it as an efficient adsorbent for removing Amoxicillin. The authors studied all affected factors as adsorbent dose, pH solution, initial Amox. concentration, equilibrium time, and temperature. The results of this research are conveyed thoughtfully and completely, and they are consistent with the experimental findings. However, the authors failed to explain and draw out the novelty of the work, this aspect needs to be improved. This work is worthwhile to be publish in this journal after major revision. The following issues should be addressed:

1. Introduction is well-organized but the importance and novelty of the research should be highlighted and more clearly stated. The authors should give some examples of works in the bibliography, to clear the advantage of their work in comparison with those works.

2. Maybe the author should compare their results clearly with other reported works, highlighting the advantage and disadvantages of their novel composite.

3. The authors are responsible for the English, which should be polished throughout the manuscript to clear some minor typo/grammar errors.

4. Introduction part, if possible, some important and relative reports references could help: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.127753, International Journal of Nano and Material Sciences, 2018, 7(1): 31-42.

5. Abstract and conclusion not targeted; the authors should rephrase it.

6. The author should better improve the beauty and quality of the figures.

7. Error bars need to be displayed for all experimental data in the graphs especially Fig.6, Fig. 9.

8. In Materials and method section, please provide the purity of your chosen precursors.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for all your suggestions.

Attached is the answer to all the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Reconsider after major revision.

(1)  In the introduction part, the authors should further state the highlights of adsorption. Besides, “The kinetics and equilibrium of Amox adsorption on chitosan beads are studied, and they fit well with the Langmuir-type equation [28]. Amox adsorption onto bentonite and activated carbon have lately been investigated, and the results show that Amox adsorption onto activated carbon is critical [29].” The above description is irrelevant, please write again.

(2)  The reason for applying Nanoparticles to adsorb the Amox should be a further expatriate. Why? What are the advantages?

(3)  In the effects of pH solution on Amox adsorption, the zeta potential should add, which helps explore the adsorption mechanism.

(4)  The authors prepared the HAP-NPs, if there are SEM to prove the successful preparation of nanoparticles.

(5)  The error bar of all the data needs to add.

(6)  In adsorption isotherm, Temkin models should be added. Please refer to the paper (10.1016/j.cej.2022.138127).

(7)  The regeneration experiment of the materials needs to be considered.

(8)  The adsorption ability of the HAP-NPS for Amox should be compared with the currently manufactured adsorbents.

Author Response

Thank you for all comments.

Attached is the response answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted in the present form

Reviewer 3 Report

ACCEPT