A Recent and Systemic Approach Towards Microbial Biodegradation of Dyes from Textile Industries
, Krishna Kumar Yadav 3, Nisha Choudhary 4, Haresh Kalasariya 5, M. Mujahid Alam 6, Amel Gacem 7, Mohammed Amanullah 8, Hala A. Ibrahium 9,10, Jae-Woo Park 11, Sungmin Park 11 and Byong-Hun Jeon 12,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research topic of microbial degradation of dyes from the textile industry is a hot topic. Researchers regularly publish reviews in this area of research. However, the stated title "A Recent and Systemic Approach Towards Microbial Degradation of Dyes from Textile Industries" does not match the content of the review, in my opinion. This manuscript is sloppily written, the material is illogical, chaotic, and superficial. The information presented in the review is not analyzed. Inscriptions under drawings do not correspond to their content. The content of figures (schemes) raises doubts about the authors' ability to structure information. Figures are of poor quality. Authors did not ask permission to publish figures borrowed from works of other researchers. I wrote specific remarks (not all of them) in the text of the article as notes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The research topic of microbial degradation of dyes from the textile industry is a hot topic. Researchers regularly publish reviews in this area of research. However, the stated title "A Recent and Systemic Approach Towards Microbial Degradation of Dyes from Textile Industries" does not match the content of the review, in my opinion. This manuscript is sloppily written, the material is illogical, chaotic, and superficial. The information presented in the review is not analyzed. Inscriptions under drawings do not correspond to their content. The content of figures (schemes) raises doubts about the authors' ability to structure information. Figures are of poor quality. Authors did not ask permission to publish figures borrowed from works of other researchers. I wrote specific remarks (not all of them) in the text of the article as notes.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now incorporated all the comments provided by the reviewer in the revised manuscript.
The authors have also improved the quality of the figures. Moreover, the authors have also taken the copyright permission for figures used in this manuscript where ever required.
Hope the reviewer will be satisfied with the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript “water-1911306”, title “A Recent and Systemic approach Towards Microbial Degradation of Dyes from Textile Industries”
This review provides important information in the field of bioremediation. However, some points are important to be addressed before going to accept this article.
1. The title is informative. Change “Degradation” to “Biodegradation”
2. Keywords need to improve with some related words such as bioremediation, bacteria, fungi, microalgae, etc.
3. English grammar and style must be revised well by an expert.
4. The introduction needs to improve with some recent publications especially in the bioremediation of microalgae. Microalgae can be used in bioremediation process in several forms like free-lipid, nanoparticles, dry weight, live form. Authors may use the following refs to cover this point of view: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15113922 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164446 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14185460
5. All Figs need to improve.
6. Marge both of (7. Gaps and Future Prospects) and (8. Benefits of microbial degradation of dyes) in one title.
Author Response
The current manuscript “water-1911306”, title “A Recent and Systemic approach Towards Microbial Degradation of Dyes from Textile Industries”
This review provides important information in the field of bioremediation. However, some points are important to be addressed before going to accept this article.
- The title is informative. Change “Degradation” to “Biodegradation”
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now Changed “Degradation” to “Biodegradation in the whole manuscript as suggested by the reviewer in the revised manuscript.
- Keywords need to improve with some related words such as bioremediation, bacteria, fungi, microalgae, etc.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now added the relevant keywords in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
- English grammar and style must be revised well by an expert.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now thoroughly corrected the English language by a subject expert English.
- The introduction needs to improve with some recent publications, especially in the bioremediation of microalgae. Microalgae can be used in bioremediation process in several forms like free-lipid, nanoparticles, dry weight, live form. Authors may use the following refs to cover this point of view: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15113922 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164446 ; https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ma14185460
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now improved the introduction section with recent publications as suggested by the reviewer in the revised manuscript. The authors have added the said section related to microalgae in the revised manuscript along with the suggested references.
- All Figs need to improve.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now improved the quality of all the figures in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
- Marge both of (7. Gaps and Future Prospects) and (8. Benefits of microbial degradation of dyes) in one title.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now merged both sections (7 & 8) as suggested by the reviewer in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper reviews the bioremediation of dyes from textile wastewater. It covers almost all of the bio-agent. A few comments below can be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
- Please refine the logical structure of the writing. In most cases, authors just describe findings from literature without giving insight into them. This comment applies to most of the manuscript text. A comprehensive update is required.
- Overall quality of the figure must be improved, particularly Figure 1 which was poorly prepared.
- Figure 6 can be further extended to cover all main stages in dyes bioremediation.
- Please cite other available reviews (there are many), and mention this work's contribution compared to previously published review articles.
- Section 8 should be elaborated further!
- Section 9 is not appropriately written as a proper conclusion.
- Lines 75-78: the statement is bold and requires proper justification. Ref #7 alone is insufficient. A comparison table with costing data is required to support the statement.
Author Response
This paper reviews the bioremediation of dyes from textile wastewater. It covers almost all of the bio-agent. A few comments below can be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
- Please refine the logical structure of the writing. In most cases, authors just describe findings from literature without giving insight into them. This comment applies to most of the manuscript text. A comprehensive update is required.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now incorporated all the above suggestions by the reviewers in the revised manuscript.
-
Overall quality of the figure must be improved, particularly Figure 1 which was poorly prepared.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now improved the quality of all the figures in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
- Figure 6 can be further extended to cover all main stages in dyes bioremediation.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now extended Fig.6 to cover all the main stages in the dye’s bioremediation in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
- Please cite other available reviews (there are many), and mention this work's contribution compared to previously published review articles.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now cited other available reviews and also compared them to previously published review articles as suggested by the reviewer in the revised version of the manuscript.
- Section 8 should be elaborated further!
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. As per the suggestion of another reviewer, authors have now merged sections 7 and 8 into 1.
- Section 9 is not appropriately written as a proper conclusion.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors have now thoroughly rewritten the conclusion section in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
- Lines 75-78: the statement is bold and requires proper justification. Ref #7 alone is insufficient. A comparison table with costing data is required to support the statement.
A/R: Thank you for this valuable comment and suggestion. The authors now made proper modifications in lines no 75-78 in the revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All comments have been adequately addressed.
