Sustainable Solutions: Reviewing the Future of Textile Dye Contaminant Removal with Emerging Biological Treatments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review highlights advanced biotechnologies and their efficacy in addressing the challenges posed by synthetic textile dyes, providing insights into emerging biological treatment strategies for the effective removal of synthetic textile dyes and contaminants from wastewater. This work can provide some information for us, but there are still some issues. I think this manuscript can be reconsidered for publication after a major revision. The detailed comments are as follows:
1. In the paper, a variety of methods are mentioned in the treatment of dye wastewater, such as biofilm reactors, microbial fuel cells, etc., which can be organically linked and objectively compared.
2. The challenges and opportunities of azo dye wastewater treatment should be added in more detail.
3. This paper introduces the application and progress of immobilized enzyme in dye decolorization, and lists many advantages of immobilized system. If there are shortcomings, you can simply explain them to ensure the objectivity of the article.
4. There are some grammatical errors in the article that need to be corrected and the language needs to be reorganized. A more logical and scientific organized version should be provided to the reader.
5. The units need to be unified, and there are many corner marking errors in the article.
6. Some conclusions in the manuscript need to be supported by relevant literatures. The following literature is recommended to cite: Molecules 2024, 29, 465; Dalton Trans. 2023, 52 (39), 13923-13929; Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 1, 795–802.
7. Great care should be taken to check the format of the references to meet the requirements of the journal, and to cite more recent researches.
8. The font and formatting of the subheadings need to be carefully examined.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
This review highlights advanced biotechnologies and their efficacy in addressing the challenges posed by synthetic textile dyes, providing insights into emerging biological treatment strategies for the effective removal of synthetic textile dyes and contaminants from wastewater. This work can provide some information for us, but there are still some issues. I think this manuscript can be reconsidered for publication after a major revision. The detailed comments are as follows:
- In the paper, a variety of methods are mentioned in the treatment of dye wastewater, such as biofilm reactors, microbial fuel cells, etc., which can be organically linked and objectively compared.
Response: Various methods mentioned for the treatment of dye wastewater have been compared objectively in the manuscript
- The challenges and opportunities of azo dye wastewater treatment should be added in more detail.
Response: The challenges and opportunities of azo dye wastewater treatment have been added in the revised manuscript.
- This paper introduces the application and progress of immobilized enzymes in dye decolourization and lists many advantages of an immobilized system. If there are shortcomings, you can simply explain them to ensure the objectivity of the article.
Response: Shortcomings of immobilized systems have been added.
- There are some grammatical errors in the article that need to be corrected and the language needs to be reorganized. A more logical and scientifically organized version should be provided to the reader.
Response: Grammatical errors have been fixed.
- The units need to be unified, and there are many corner marking errors in the article.
Response: Units have been verified and unified
- Some conclusions in the manuscript need to be supported by relevant literature. The following literature is recommended to cite: Molecules 2024, 29, 465; Dalton Trans. 2023, 52 (39), 13923-13929; Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 1, 795–802.
Response: Suggested literature has been cited in the manuscript
- Great care should be taken to check the format of the references to meet the requirements of the journal and to cite more recent research.
Response: Some recent articles have been cited and references have been arranged as per the requirement of the journal.
- The font and formatting of the subheadings need to be carefully examined.
Response: The font and formatting of the subheadings have been examined and revised
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegarding the manuscript entitled " Sustainable Solutions: Reviewing the Future of Textile Dye Contaminant Removal with Emerging Biological Treatments", It shows a comprehensive review on the removal of contaminants from textile dyes and emphasizes emerging biological treatments. However, some technical aspects should be considered.
Figure 1 is very general and does not show important information, it is recommended to delete or modify it. Instead of posting an image of the powder dye, you could post chemical formulas of dyes and say where they are applied. The position of Figure 1 should be after the first paragraph, which is where it is mentioned.
Figure 4 should come after the paragraph where it is mentioned and not after the subtitle.
In subtitles 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 add an image of an example of some colorant elimination mechanism, since it is a lot of text. With an image it can be explained better and it is more pleasant to the reader.
Arrange the paragraph references in the numbering format and with square brackets ([ ]), since this is what the journal requests.
Add author contributions
Author Response
The manuscript entitled " Sustainable Solutions: Reviewing the Future of Textile Dye Contaminant Removal with Emerging Biological Treatments", shows a comprehensive review of the removal of contaminants from textile dyes and emphasizes emerging biological treatments. However, some technical aspects should be considered.
Response: For the removal of contaminants from textile dyes technical aspects of some emerging biological treatments have been added in the manuscript.
Figure 1 is very general and does not show important information, it is recommended to delete or modify it. Instead of posting an image of the powder dye, you could post chemical formulas of dyes and say where they are applied. The position of Figure 1 should be after the first paragraph, which is where it is mentioned.
Response: Figure 1 has been deleted from the manuscript
Figure 4 should come after the paragraph where it is mentioned and not after the subtitle.
Response: Rearranged the figure as per suggestion.
In subtitles, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 add an image of an example of some colourant elimination mechanism since it is a lot of text. With an image, it can be explained better and it is more pleasant to the reader.
Response: No images have been added, but the contents of subtitles 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 have been improved and summarized.
Arrange the paragraph references in the numbering format and with square brackets ([ ]), since this is what the journal requests.
Response: References have been arranged as per suggestion.
Add author contributions
Response: Author contributions have been added in the modified manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI infer that was considered the scheme in Figure 4 to address biological advances in the elimination of dyes, but the topic of nanomaterials was not taken up, even though the conclusions mentioned something about it, the writing could be complemented with this point.
In the case of the topic of phyto-remediation, was it covered with the section on the use of microalgae?
Review the cited references, some have an incorrect date or are not included in the list, in point 1 some were highlighted but from point 2 onwards this was no longer reviewed
In addition, some observations were made in the document, highlighting or crossing out the text or adding a comment (Attached file).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I infer that was considered the scheme in Figure 4 to address biological advances in the elimination of dyes, but the topic of nanomaterials was not taken up, even though the conclusions mentioned something about it, the writing could be complemented with this point.
Response: Contents in this topic have been updated
In the case of the topic of phyto-remediation, was it covered with the section on the use of microalgae?
Response: Yes
Review the cited references, some have an incorrect date or are not included in the list, in point 1 some were highlighted but from point 2 onwards this was no longer reviewed
Response: Incorrect dates have been corrected and missing citations have been added in the reference section
In addition, some observations were made in the document, highlighting or crossing out the text or adding a comment (Attached file).
Response: Please find below the reply for additional highlighted comments
Comment 1. Munagapati et al., 2020?
Response: It has been corrected
Comment 2. Write functional groups (subscripts) correctly.
Response: Functional groups have been corrected
Comment 3. 2020?
Response: It has been corrected
Comment 4. 2018?
Response: It has been corrected
Comment 5. What does CD means? It was a environmental issues
Response: The image has been corrected.
Comment 6. Delete repeated contains?
Response: Deleted
Comment 7. Not found in the reference list
Response: Reference Talha et al., 2017 has been added to the reference
Comment 9. N.F.?
Response: The full form of NF (Nanofiltration) has been added
Comment 9. Is this sentence correct? 0% decolourization?
Response: By mistake, it was written as 0%, but now it is corrected to 97%.
Comment 10. Describe the meaning of the acronyms the first time they are used
Response: It has been described as an Advanced Oxidation Process (AOPs).
Comment 11. A.Q.?
Response: It has been described as Anthraquinone.
Comment 12. Year of publication?
Response: The year of publication has been added
Comment 13. Is this phrase correct in this place?
Response: Corrected.
Comment 14. Complete or incomplete?
Response: Completed
Comment 15. The topic of nanoparticles was not discussed in the article
Response: It has been discussed under the heading Advanced Biological Approaches
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did a great job and corrected all observations. I think it should be accepted for publication.
