Approaches for Sampling and Sample Preparation for Microplastic Analysis in Laundry Effluents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study offers a comprehensive examination of sampling and sample preparation methodologies for microplastic analysis in laundry effluents. This subject is critically important due to the concerns surrounding microplastic fibers, especially their potential for long-range airborne transport and hazardous effects on biota.
For the discussion on long-distance wind transport in lines 50-51, kindly consider referencing recent studies, including Xiao, S., Cui, Y., Brahney, J., Mahowald, N.M., and Li, Q., 2023. The cited work, "Long-distance atmospheric transport of microplastic fibers influenced by their shapes" in Nature Geoscience, volume 16, issue 10, pages 863-870, provides pertinent insights.
On line 59, the term "effectively" may not convey the intended nuance. Perhaps "pervasively" or "extensively" would offer clearer expression.
Regarding the transition after lines 79-84, the introduction of microplastic fibers (MPFs) in laundry effluents seems quite sudden. It would be beneficial to elaborate on this point, possibly by discussing global annual emissions, to underscore the significance of reviewing this topic.
For Figure 1, a higher resolution image is recommended to enhance clarity and impact.
In Figure 3, please confirm whether "transportation" or "transport" best fits the context. The latter is typically preferred in scientific discourse.
After line 204, there is an inconsistency in paragraph indentation. For uniformity and better presentation, please standardize this aspect throughout the document.
In lines 215-216, the term "biofouling" inaccurately describes a property of microplastic (MP) material (it is not a material property). Please revise to more accurately reflect the nature of biofouling in relation to MP.
In Section 5, your review of three approaches is greatly appreciated. To enhance clarity and utility, consider summarizing each method in a distinct table, providing a more direct comparison and reference for readers.
Your attention to these details will significantly enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article illustrates that the key steps of MP analysis in laundry effluents and domestic washing, focusing on those steps that are underestimated in the current literature: sampling and sample preparation for analysis. Precisely these analytical steps, which can become the main source of analytical measurement system errors, ensure the quality of the analysis. This paper emphasises the importance of monitoring background contamination and presents guidelines to ensure quality control specifically for this type of analyte. The relevant suggestions are as follows:
1 Introduction： In line 64 of the article, it says numerous studies provide information on the content of MPs, but the methods for sampling, isolation, purification and identification of microplastics differ greatly.Please state what methods for sampling, isolation, purification and identification of microplastics are currently available. What are their differences, what are their advantages and disadvantages.
In line 77 of the article, it mentions that people want to find a standardized way to evaluate MPs, please briefly explain the method applied and the benefits of this approach.
In line 79-84 of the article, it says the concept of fibre fragments. Please add why fibre fragments is cited and explain its relationship to microplastics.
2 Textiles as a main source of fibre fragments： In line 111 of the article, this line mentions “Figure 2”, it should be wrong, it should be “Figure 1”.
In line 138 of the article, it says the detergents are often alkali-based, which in turn facilitate release of fibre fragments through migration of oligomers formed by hydrolysis. Whether this sentence is based on any evidence, please find the relevant literature.
In line 158 of the article, it says the main problem regarding the methodology of sampling, isolation and characterisation of MPs is reflected in their inconsistency, and often the methods used have limitations in terms of accuracy and detection limits. Please explain the limitations of sampling, separation and characterization of MPs.
In line 189 of the article, it says depending on the chosen methods for MPs analysis, but also the complexity of the sample matrix, appropriate collection and preparation techniques are selected. This sentence is not detailed enough, please explain how to choose the analysis method of MPs according to the complexity of the sample matrix.
3 Internal quality control： This paragraph describes the quality detection by adding a blank control to reduce error and increase accuracy. How to compare blank controls? How to ensure the accuracy of experiments?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review is interesting, well-organized in its various sections. I believe it could be published in Sustainability after it has been implemented. I suggest adding a synoptic table that summarizes the main methods and results related to textile fibers originating from laundry and domestic washing machines, and enhancing the discussion on this topic.
Below are my suggestions:
Caption Figure 1. The graph also includes secondary MPs (textile-origin fibers). Please modify the caption.
Natural (cotton, wool, silk) and man-made cellulosic fibres are found in wastewater in much higher concentrations than synthetic fibres [41]. please check this sentence: Is it correct?
line 126-127. I do not agree, I suggest replacing this sentence. I should suggest highlighting that: Cellulose fibers treated with dyes or additives pose potential risks to marine organisms. Industrial dyes, commonly used with various polymers like cellulose fibers, have been associated with ecological concerns (Oehlmann et al., 2009; Remy et al., 2015). Notably, indigo is frequently employed to dye cellulose fibers for blue jeans, a ubiquitous garment worldwide. Studies have confirmed the presence of indigo-dyed microfibers in marine ecosystems (Bottari et al., 2022; Lots et al., 2017), suggesting "blue jeans" microfibers serve as indicators of anthropogenic pollution spanning from temperate to Arctic regions (Athey et al., 2020). Furthermore, textile dyes can degrade the aesthetic quality of water bodies, elevate biochemical and chemical oxygen demands (BOD and COD), disrupt photosynthesis, and impede plant growth. These dyes may also infiltrate the food chain, leading to bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and posing risks of toxicity, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity.
Absher, T.M., Ferreira, S.L., Kern, Y., Ferreira, A.L., Christo, S.W., Ando, R.A., 2019. Incidence and identification of microfibers in ocean waters in Admiralty Bay, Antarctica. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356- 018-3509-6.
Athey, S.N. et al. The Widespread Environmental Footprint of Indigo Denim Microfibers from Blue Jeans. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 7, 840–847 (2020).
Aves et al., (2022) First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022
Bottari T., (2022) Anthropogenic microparticles in the emerald rockcod Trematomus bernacchii (Nototheniidae) from the Antarctic. 2Sci Rep Oct 14;12(1):17214. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21670-x.
Lots, F. A. E. et al. (2017). A Large-Scale Investigation of Microplastic Contamination: Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in European Beach Sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 219–226
Mancuso, M. (2023) Monitoring of anthropogenic microplastic pollution in Antarctic fish (emerald rockcod) from the Terranova Bay after a quarter of century. Sci. Total Environ. 25: 167244. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167244.
Oehlmann, J.R. et al. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. BBiol. Sci. 364 (1526), 2047e2062 (2009).
Remy, F. et al. (2015). When microplastic is not plastic: The ingestion of artificial cellulose fibers by macrofauna living in seagrass macro-phytodetritus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11158–11166
line 123: I should highlight that:
Recent studies on plastic pollution in Antarctic ecosystems indicate thatm the presence of anthropogenic fibers may be associated with contamination from Antarctic research stations, potentially originating from polar clothing and equipment. (see Aves et al., 2022 and Mancuso et al., 2023).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsdear authors
First of all, on behalf of MPDI, I would like to thank you for submitting your manuscript to this journal and hope that you will be satisfied with it.
It was with great pleasure that I read your manuscript, which perfectly meets the strictest scientific criteria. Of course, you could have addressed other critical points about PMs, for example in relation to their incredibly complex chemical composition. The lack of transparency on the part of manufacturers in the name of industrial secrecy, the difficulty of obtaining reference or calibration products that take account of their nature, size and shape.
Nevertheless, and in view of your title, you have touched on a point that is rarely covered in the literature, and your research fills a glaring gap. For these reasons, I recommend its publication after a few very minor revisions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest a major revision of your article.
I see the problem in the small practical contribution of your work (no progress beyond the current state of art at all), considering the already published reviews in this area. E.g., Silva et al., 2018 (you do not cite); Koelmans et al., 2019 - you cite as the source 169), etc.
It is also generally not clear why your article is submitted to Sustainability. It practically does not deal with any issue of sustainability. What is its connection to sustainability? How can you extrapolate your review, e.g. to the SDGs?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS has been improved and it can be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your response.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have significantly improved their article. However, information on sustainability is still limited.
Therefore, it is recommended to add the information to which SDGs the article contributes. Somewhere between lines 110 to 115.
Line 90 - MPF - please explain this abbreviation (no explanation found in the article text).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
