Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 13th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 8th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 22nd, 2025 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 9th, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jun 9, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

The manuscript is ready for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 8, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The manuscript needs a detailed major revision as per suggestions from both the referees. The manuscript must be critically revised.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

see comment

Experimental design

see comment

Validity of the findings

see comment

Additional comments

You need some revisions or clarifications regarding the research methods and results you obtained. see comments.
You need some revisions or clarifications regarding your research methods and results. see comments.
this article is good enough to be published with some improvements

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The only two figures presented in the manuscript are far insufficient, with one schematic diagram and one figure showing the removal efficiencies. Please supplement sufficient results of the adsorbent characterizations (XRD, SEM, IR, etc.) and the extraction in the manuscript.

Experimental design

none

Validity of the findings

1.The quality of FTIR spectra in Fig. S9 is not good and the peaks cannot be well recognized.
2.Please add the scale bar in SEM images.
3.The BET analysis results of ZSM-5 in Table S1 are incorrect. The unit of pore size is not cm3/g. Please also supplement the pore volume data.
4.It is strange that the BET surface area increased after treatment, for example, ZnGZ-M-F, ZnGZ+M-F, ZnGZ-M+F and ZnGZ+M+F.
5.Please add an analysis of the potential mechanism of the enhanced extraction of copper ions.

Additional comments

none

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.