The Microplastics Cycle: An In-Depth Look at a Complex Topic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

I would like to commend the authors for their comprehensive review of the intricate topic of the microplastics cycle. The manuscript is well-written and effectively conveys the significance of understanding this cycle to address the issues arising from plastic pollution.

Specific Comments:

1.      The authors have skillfully presented a complex topic in a manner that facilitates comprehension. It is clear that this review paper highlights the gaps in our research and understanding of how to mitigate the issues arising from microplastics. The clarity in presentation greatly enhances the value of this paper.

2.      While the manuscript mentions that microplastics often enter water systems through wastewater treatment plants, it would be beneficial to include more details about the methods proposed to intercept microplastics at these treatment facilities. Additionally, the author's insights on why these methods may not have been practically implemented and suggestions for improvement would enhance the completeness of the manuscript.

3.      The paper references only one article regarding how microplastics can impact the life and metabolism of algae in freshwater. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of microplastics on freshwater ecosystems, it is recommended to include additional references and details on this subject, especially in relation to harmful algal blooms, which are a significant concern in freshwater environments.

4.      The manuscript correctly emphasizes considering the entire life cycle of plastics, including the post-disposal phase. To strengthen this aspect, it would be beneficial to incorporate any existing models that depict the journey of plastics or microplastics after reaching a landfill. This addition would further enrich the discussion on the environmental impact of microplastics throughout their lifecycle.

Overall, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of microplastics research. Addressing the above points will enhance the depth and breadth of the review, making it even more informative and impactful.

Author Response

General Comments:

I would like to commend the authors for their comprehensive review of the intricate topic of the microplastics cycle. The manuscript is well-written and effectively conveys the significance of understanding this cycle to address the issues arising from plastic pollution.

Specific Comments:

1. The authors have skillfully presented a complex topic in a manner that facilitates comprehension. It is clear that this review paper highlights the gaps in our research and understanding of how to mitigate the issues arising from microplastics. The clarity in presentation greatly enhances the value of this paper.

Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our efforts to present a complex topic clearly. Your comment motivates us to maintain the manuscript's clarity and accessibility.

2. While the manuscript mentions that microplastics often enter water systems through wastewater treatment plants, it would be beneficial to include more details about the methods proposed to intercept microplastics at these treatment facilities. Additionally, the author's insights on why these methods may not have been practically implemented and suggestions for improvement would enhance the completeness of the manuscript.

Your suggestion regarding including more details about methods to intercept microplastics at wastewater treatment plants is excellent. We have incorporated additional information on these methods and the challenges hindering their practical implementation in the revised manuscript (line numbers 227-235).

3. The paper references only one article regarding how microplastics can impact the life and metabolism of algae in freshwater. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of microplastics on freshwater ecosystems, it is recommended to include additional references and details on this subject, especially in relation to harmful algal blooms, which are a significant concern in freshwater environments.

We appreciate your recommendation to expand on the impact of microplastics on freshwater ecosystems, especially concerning harmful algal blooms. We have included more references and elaborated on this topic to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the revised manuscript (line numbers 303-308).

4. The manuscript correctly emphasizes considering the entire life cycle of plastics, including the post-disposal phase. To strengthen this aspect, it would be beneficial to incorporate any existing models that depict the journey of plastics or microplastics after reaching a landfill. This addition would further enrich the discussion on the environmental impact of microplastics throughout their lifecycle.

Thank you for highlighting the importance of considering the entire lifecycle of microplastics, including their journey after reaching a landfill. We have included models depicting the post-disposal phase of plastics and microplastics to enhance the manuscript's discussion on their environmental impact throughout their lifecycle (line numbers 86-88).

Overall, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of microplastics research. Addressing the above points will enhance the depth and breadth of the review, making it even more informative and impactful.

We value your feedback, and these changes have contributed to improving the manuscript's depth and breadth. Your comments have been instrumental in making our review more informative and impactful.

Reviewer 2 Report

i.          The aim of the study is missing even it is a review the authors should state the purpose of the study.

ii.        The material and method section is not clear. The authors need to restructure material and method section.

-          For instance; How did the authors gather the information from WOS, SCOPUS etc.?

-          Which keywords did they use?

-          the authors mention about the aquatic ecosystem  however it is neceserry  for the readers they should add a subtitle such as transferring ways this pollunt or else.

iii.       Conclusion part is also very speculative because the authors did not evaluate any methods in their result and discussion parts so how could they conclude such statements.

The recent literature has to be cited in the reference section. OR Authors should have to cite recent literature. Suggested references

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115461 , https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2022.2126461, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11426-z , https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16243-w,

use SI units only in your paper.  Use the form g kg ^-1 , etc. (not %) to specify content/composition/concentration, and use % only to express proportional change.  Note that the form g 100g ^-1 , etc. is not correct.  Avoid the use of g per 100g, for example in food/feed composition, by using g kg ^-1 .  Use xg values and not rpm.

i.          The aim of the study is missing even it is a review the authors should state the purpose of the study.

ii.        The material and method section is not clear. The authors need to restructure material and method section.

-          For instance; How did the authors gather the information from WOS, SCOPUS etc.?

-          Which keywords did they use?

-          the authors mention about the aquatic ecosystem  however it is neceserry  for the readers they should add a subtitle such as transferring ways this pollunt or else.

iii.       Conclusion part is also very speculative because the authors did not evaluate any methods in their result and discussion parts so how could they conclude such statements.

The recent literature has to be cited in the reference section. OR Authors should have to cite recent literature. Suggested references

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115461 , https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2022.2126461, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11426-z , https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16243-w,

use SI units only in your paper.  Use the form g kg ^-1 , etc. (not %) to specify content/composition/concentration, and use % only to express proportional change.  Note that the form g 100g ^-1 , etc. is not correct.  Avoid the use of g per 100g, for example in food/feed composition, by using g kg ^-1 .  Use xg values and not rpm.

Author Response

1. The aim of the study is missing even it is a review the authors should state the purpose of the study.

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback on our manuscript. While our work is a review paper, we understand the importance of clearly stating the purpose of the study. We would like to direct your attention to lines 19-23, where we have explicitly outlined the aim and purpose of this review. Your input is highly valuable, and we are committed to ensuring that our objectives are effectively communicated throughout the manuscript.

1. The material and method section is not clear. The authors need to restructure material and method section.

-          For instance; How did the authors gather the information from WOS, SCOPUS etc.?

-          Which keywords did they use?

We appreciate your suggestions for improvement. To address your queries:

1. Information Gathering: Detailed information on how we collected data from sources can be found specifically in lines 60-62, 108-111, 144-147, 240-243, and 335-338.
2. Keywords: Our selection of keywords and search terms is also provided within the same sections mentioned above.

-          the authors mention about the aquatic ecosystem  however it is neceserry  for the readers they should add a subtitle such as transferring ways this pollunt or else.

 We appreciate your insightful feedback regarding the organization of our manuscript. To address your suggestion of providing a subtitle for the aquatic ecosystem section, we'd like to direct your attention to lines 217-220, where we have elaborated on the various ways pollutants are transferred within this ecosystem.

iii.       Conclusion part is also very speculative because the authors did not evaluate any methods in their result and discussion parts so how could they conclude such statements.

         We genuinely appreciate your engagement with our manuscript and your valuable insights. We agree that our conclusion section may have appeared speculative, and we understand your concern. Our primary focus in this review paper has been to synthesize and analyze existing research within the field of microplastics, identify research gaps, and provide suggestions for a comprehensive approach to addressing the microplastics cycle. While we did not conduct method evaluations in the traditional sense, our conclusions are based on a thorough examination of the literature and our assessment of the collective findings.

 The recent literature has to be cited in the reference section. OR Authors should have to cite recent literature. Suggested references

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115461 , https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2022.2126461, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11426-z , https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16243-w,

 Thank you for your comment and for suggesting additional recent literature for consideration. We appreciate your input, and we will carefully review the suggested references to assess their relevance and applicability to our manuscript.

use SI units only in your paper.  Use the form g kg ^-1 , etc. (not %) to specify content/composition/concentration, and use % only to express proportional change.  Note that the form g 100g ^-1 , etc. is not correct.  Avoid the use of g per 100g, for example in food/feed composition, by using g kg ^-1 .  Use xg values and not rpm.

Thank you for your comment and guidance regarding the use of SI units in our paper. We appreciate your attention to detail in this matter.

In our review paper, we have strived to maintain consistency with the units and formatting used in the source papers we referenced. As a review paper, our goal is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing research, including the presentation of data as it was originally published in those source papers.

Additionally, we understand your point about the use of certain terms, such as rpm. We would like to clarify that we have not used RPM in our article.

We value your input and will ensure that our use of units and presentation aligns with the original sources while maintaining the clarity and accuracy of our review. Your feedback is essential to improving our manuscript, and we appreciate your understanding of our approach.