Removal of Agrochemicals from Waters by Adsorption: A Critical Comparison among Humic-Like Substances, Zeolites, Porous Oxides, and Magnetic Nanocomposites
, Gianfranco Dell’Agli 1, Filomena Sannino 2,*, Serena Esposito 3, Barbara Bonelli 3, Paolo Allia 3, Paola Tiberto 4, Gabriele Barrera 4 and Michele Pansini 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Processes-683138 Reviewer comments
Removal of agrochemicals from waters by adsorption: a critical comparison among humic-like substances, zeolites, porous oxides and magnetic nanocomposites
This paper reviews the current status of a range of materials trialled in recent years for the removal of agrochemicals (2-4-D, paraquat, cyhalofop, MCPA, simazine) and considers evidence for their relative efficacy in relation to meeting current legal and regulatory targets. The authors conclude that magnetic nanocomposites, in particular, show promise for cost-effective removal of such toxic contaminants from polluted waters owing to their relative ease of both production and regeneration. However, the authors do not go on to indicate practical systems whereby agricultural runoff waters could be decontaminated at the field scale. A discussion of these issues would seem to be a valuable and relevant addition to the paper, if such systems are indeed in operation, as it would provide the reader with a fuller picture of the potential for application of such materials in the wider context of environmental protection.
The paper is generally well written, to a good standard of English, although there are many instances of inappropriate words or phrases where editing would improve the readability of the text and the clarity of meaning. Examples (with line numbers) are listed below to aid the Authors and Editor.
Suggested changes of wording or phrase…
56 change “previous” to “above”
62 reason for…
66, 536 attractive
70 change “notoriously” to “characteristically”
74 oxides of various elements…
93/4 …growing attention is paid to the legal limits of agrochemicals in various types of water.
102 matters
The word “proper/properly” (118, 119, 127, 129) – it’s meaning is not clear in this context (accurate? realistic? appropriate? relevant?) – authors should decide in what sense “proper”.
144 What are the units – 1 what per cm? - not clear.
149, 154, 376 “what reported in” – the phrase is redundant – delete.
168 “midly” – what is meant here? - mildly acidic?
172, 184 “Obviously” – as no evidence is given, “As expected” would be a better phrase.
176 “at at”?
179 …numerous the higher the pH. Similarly in 185 …extent the lower the pH.
187 bonds
191 decrease in
195 change “was” to “were”. Also “paraquat was”
208 “From Fig… one may draw” suggest change to “Fig… indicate the highest…” or “..demonstrate..”.
217 ratios
231 absorption of
237 is independent of
240 lone pairs of N atoms on the lateral chains
252 and 313 Despite this, …
287 change “Obviously” to “Apparently…”
280 oxo-hydroxide
336 …in its…
364 concentrations
365 levels
398 change “of” to “to”
426 delete “of”
452 absorbents
484 change “seems an evidence” to “indicates”
494 plateaus or plateaux
529 change “bit” to “little”
532 years
542 …must be given due…
544 …attainable only with great difficulty…
544 …a method to solve an environmental problem is practical only if…
546 Unfortunately, the separation… …medium, after removal of agrochemicals is a problem…
551 pointing to
Missing spaces following punctuation etc in several lines (97, 108, 110, 112, 128, 237, 318, 355, 405)
Author Response
Portici, 10rd January 2020
Ms. Vicky Zuo
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Review Paper, Processes-683138
Title: Removal of agrochemicals from waters by adsorption: a critical comparison among humic-like substances, zeolites, porous oxides and magnetic nanocomposites
Authors: Antonello Marocco, Gianfranco Dell'Agli, Filomena Sannino *, Serena Esposito, Barbara Bonelli, Paolo Allia, Paola Tiberto, Gabriele Barrera, Michele Pansini
Dear Zuo,
We thank the reviewer for her/his observation and advices. We think that their comments have given us the opportunity to improve the quality of our work.
The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewers’ comments. All points arose by the reviewers have been considered. We hope that the paper can now be considered for publication in Special Issue “Advances of Nanocomposites in Bioremediation Processes” of Processes.
The revisions of the Review Paper, Processes-683138, are written in the manuscript in red. Their details and the responses to the reviewers' comments are hereafter reported:
All the changes of wording of phrase suggested by Reviewer 1 were accepted and reported in the manuscript. All the authors wish to sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the excellent work of editing of the manuscript. Almost all the sentences evidenced in the similarity report were reworded so as to bring the similarity index to far lower values. An index was provided at the beginning of the work to allow a more comfortable reading to the reader, according to the suggestion of Reviewer 2. The lack of large scale applications of magnetic metal-ceramic nanocomposites in environment decontamination (confirmed by two further references) was reported in the Conclusions.
I send you my best regards, yours sincerely
Filomena Sannino
Prof. Filomena Sannino
Università di Napoli “Federico II”
Department of Agricultural Sciences
Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (NA), ITALY
Tel.+390812539187
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents valuable information for further research and application. The authors should improve the structure of the article by integrating the figures to the text.
The research methodology is not clearly revealed - the research methods is not presented but there is references provided to it.
While the structure of the article is complex - maybe authors could provide some diagram or some kind of map helping readers to better navigate the content of the article. If it is not possible or acceptable - feel free to ignore this suggestion.
In the presentation of results, it is difficult to separate where are results obtained by the authors and where are results obtained from other sources. Authors should provide clarifications in order to highlight their contribution.
The conclusions provide a summarised story about problems in the field - this is interesting, but maybe not matching scientific writing style. It is recommended to provide conclusions about achievements declared in the article and provide further research directions.
Author Response
Portici, 10rd January 2020
Ms. Vicky Zuo
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Review Paper, Processes-683138
Title: Removal of agrochemicals from waters by adsorption: a critical comparison among humic-like substances, zeolites, porous oxides and magnetic nanocomposites
Authors: Antonello Marocco, Gianfranco Dell'Agli, Filomena Sannino *, Serena Esposito, Barbara Bonelli, Paolo Allia, Paola Tiberto, Gabriele Barrera, Michele Pansini
Dear Zuo,
We thank the reviewer for her/his observation and advices. We think that their comments have given us the opportunity to improve the quality of our work.
The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewers’ comments. All points arose by the reviewers have been considered. We hope that the paper can now be considered for publication in Special Issue “Advances of Nanocomposites in Bioremediation Processes” of Processes.
The revisions of the Review Paper, Processes-683138, are written in the manuscript in red. Their details and the responses to the reviewers' comments are hereafter reported:
All the changes of wording of phrase suggested by Reviewer 1 were accepted and reported in the manuscript. All the authors wish to sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the excellent work of editing of the manuscript. Almost all the sentences evidenced in the similarity report were reworded so as to bring the similarity index to far lower values. An index was provided at the beginning of the work to allow a more comfortable reading to the reader, according to the suggestion of Reviewer 2. The lack of large scale applications of magnetic metal-ceramic nanocomposites in environment decontamination (confirmed by two further references) was reported in the Conclusions.
I send you my best regards, yours sincerely
Filomena Sannino
Prof. Filomena Sannino
Università di Napoli “Federico II”
Department of Agricultural Sciences
Via Università 100, 80055 Portici (NA), ITALY
Tel.+390812539187
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article manuscript is improved after the author's review. The information provided in the article is valuable and worth to be published.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for your valuable comments
