Impact of Antibiotic Pollution on the Bacterial Population within Surface Water with Special Focus on Mountain Rivers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
All the remarks have been addressed and the replies to each remark are privided in the attached Word document.
With kind regards,
Anna Lenart-Boroń
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript aimed to provide a revision referring to the impact of antibiotics on bacterial population in pristine ecosystems. Undoubtedly, this theme is relevant for environmental health protection.
Below there are some comments in order to improve the manuscript:
The introduction is well written and clear in the contextualization of the theme. Along the manuscript it can be seen the relevance of the topic.
What I really consider crucial is to show a detailed methodology used to run a review.
In this case, I could not see the method used to carry out the review. In my opinion, information such as: which bibliographical bases were explored, the period of time that was established for the search for articles, how the descriptors were defined, the languages of the descriptors were used for the searching of the literature, the scope of geographic regions.
If this information is omitted, this may cause bias in the interpretation of the literature reports obtained and also restrictions in the scope of the topic, which is not interesting in a bibliographic review. Especially when the authors propose to provide a perspective on current research about antibiotics emergence in mountain areas and identify knowledge gaps in this field.
There is no doubt the limitations pointed above resulted in a questionable conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a valuable remarks and comments to our paper. Below we provide answers and information on how the paper was changed in response to the remarks.
- The introduction is well written and clear in the contextualization of the theme. Along the manuscript it can be seen the relevance of the topic.
Response: Thank you for this remark.
- What I really consider crucial is to show a detailed methodology used to run a review.
In this case, I could not see the method used to carry out the review. In my opinion, information such as: which bibliographical bases were explored, the period of time that was established for the search for articles, how the descriptors were defined, the languages of the descriptors were used for the searching of the literature, the scope of geographic regions.
Response: We added a paragraph (at the end of the Introduction section) describing in details the search strategy.
- If this information is omitted, this may cause bias in the interpretation of the literature reports obtained and also restrictions in the scope of the topic, which is not interesting in a bibliographic review. Especially when the authors propose to provide a perspective on current research about antibiotics emergence in mountain areas and identify knowledge gaps in this field.
There is no doubt the limitations pointed above resulted in a questionable conclusion.
Response: As stated above – we provided detailed information with respect to the search strategy. It involved a few databases, included the most relevant descriptors and focused on the past 20 years. We looked for papers written in English, because this is currently an international language used for writing papers. We included only two older papers, as they were most relevant to the scope of our study. With using the described search strategy, we found only 7 papers directly referring to the antibiotic contamination of mountain rivers. This was the reason for us to formulate the conclusion that there is a knowledge gap in this field.
We hope that these clarifications are satisfactory and that the applied changes will make the paper acceptable.
With kind regards,
Anna Lenart-Boroń
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Some figures are with small and almost illegible legends on the graphics
2. “Antibiotics are bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents used to treat bacterial infections, and providing a solution in the treatment of many diseases. Antimicrobial substances are also used for non-medical purposes such as livestock, poultry and fish growth stimulation. This could be added the current results, including CrystEngComm, 2022, 24, 6933–6943; Mater. Today. Commum., 2022, 31,103514; CrystEngComm, 2022, 24, 7157–7165 and J. Alloy. Compd, 2022, 897, 163178.
4. All the Tables must be redone. Remove the features that are not used in scientific journals and improve its size. The header should be centered and not on multiple lines.
5. They are few figures and examples on this topic, I suggest the authors should be extended the related refs and concluded them in the revision.
6. The authors should draw a scheme for the removal of wastewater by using different technical purposes.
7. To increase the reader's understanding and interest, I propose a separate section detailing the concept, characteristics, and types of materials and their unique advantages.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for a valuable remarks and comments to our paper. Below we provide answers and information on how the paper was changed in response to the remarks.
- Some figures are with small and almost illegible legends on the graphics
Response: this issue could have been caused by the fact that all figures have been included in the manuscript file in the original submission. In the corrected version, apart from including the figures in the text, we are submitting them as separate files, too.
- “Antibiotics are bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents used to treat bacterial infections, and providing a solution in the treatment of many diseases. Antimicrobial substances are also used for non-medical purposes such as livestock, poultry and fish growth stimulation. This could be added the current results, including CrystEngComm, 2022, 24, 6933–6943; Mater. Today. Commum., 2022, 31,103514; CrystEngComm, 2022, 24, 7157–7165 and J. Alloy. Compd, 2022, 897, 163178.
Response: We have read the suggested publications. Two of them are not within the scope of this paper, whereas the second two were cited as suggested.
- All the Tables must be redone. Remove the features that are not used in scientific journals and improve its size. The header should be centered and not on multiple lines.
Response: The tables were prepared according to the template provided by the MDPI. However, we extended the width of the columns where the content was in separate lines. We provided citations for the items that the Reviewer suggested.
- They are few figures and examples on this topic, I suggest the authors should be extended the related refs and concluded them in the revision.
Response: We provided two more figures and extended the review with a few references as suggested.
- The authors should draw a scheme for the removal of wastewater by using different technical purposes.
Response: Among the two figures that were added (as stated above), one of them (Figure 4) deals with the advanced technical strategies to remove antibiotics from wastewater.
- To increase the reader's understanding and interest, I propose a separate section detailing the concept, characteristics, and types of materials and their unique advantages.
Response: a paragraph discussing the most modern materials used for the removal of antibiotics from wastewater was added as suggested by the Reviewer.
We hope that the included changes will make the paper acceptable.
With kind regards,
Anna Lenart-Boroń
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear all,
The revision responded all aspects I pointed.
I consider the authors should remove the words "systematic review" in page 3, line 115. In fact, the authors did not apply any methods like PRISMA or other validated method for carrying out the review, so it is not a systematic review.
I believe the manuscript is OK to be published.
Regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
accepted.
