Microplastics Removal from a Plastic Recycling Industrial Wastewater Using Sand Filtration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Opinion on the paper ‘Microplastics removal from a plastic recycling industrial
wastewater using sand iltration’
The article ‘Microplastics removal from a plastic recycling industrial wastewater using sand iltration ’by Muhammad Umar, Cecilie Singdahl-Larsen1 and Sissel Brit Ranneklev is an interesting manuscript. The work describes using the sand-filter for removal of microplastic from wastewater collected from a plastic recycling facility. This article fits the subject of Water Journal.
The manuscript may be published after a slight correction. Some minor flaws are listed below:
- Line 77 - The first person voice, such as ‘we’ is often not used in scientific papers. Please check the full text to remove first person voice
· - Discussion should be based on more references
· - References should be described followed Instructions for authors, depending on the type of work e.g. journal articles:
1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe the microplastics retention by on-site sand-filter for the treatment of industrial wastewater. The manuscript is well written and organized. This study is a good contribution to the growing literature on microplastic removal in wastewater treatment. I would recommend this manuscript would be acceptable with minor revisions as below.
1) Introduction: The authors should improve novel quantification tools that can detect 10 um below using u-Raman. The authors can cite the references which were used in wastewater.
- Water Research (2023) 229: 119473
- Chemical Engineering Journal (2023) 454: 140028.
2) Could the authors provide other water quality parameters in industrial wastewater? (e.g., TOC/DOC, suspended solids, etc.)
3) How the authors can predict the microplastics removal less than 30 um in wastewater?
4) Figure 6 can be provided in triplicate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did good research, but they only reported the results without any discussion. Some of the results does not match well. The authors need to add more details and confirm their observed results. For example, the authors mentioned about the following results: what is the reason for this increase in number of particles in treated samples in compare with untreated samples?
1. Amount of partcles 5 mm in treated sample is increased in compare with untreated sample.
2. whereas the number of polypropylene particles was much higher in the treated sample.
Also, the quality of figures, and writing need major revision. I suggest they compare their results with published works in this field and confirm their observed result with more details.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments are not addressed in the revised manuscript (e.g., 1. Introduction )
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thanks for your revision and full explanation.
I suggest acceptance for this manuscript in this format.
Author Response
Thank you.
