Underestimation about the Contribution of Nitrate Reducers to Iron Cycling Indicated by Enterobacter Strain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is devoted to anaerobic Nitrate-reducing and iron(II) oxidation (NRFO) which is of great importance in driving iron and nitrogen biogeochemical cycling.
In general, I believe that this work was done at a high level using a large number of high-precision equipment and techniques. The introduction, description of the methods, description of the results and their discussion seemed to me quite adequate.
However, I have the feeling that the topic of this work is more suitable for a microbiological journal than for a “Molecules” journal, as it considers the physiology of 4 strains of bacteria of Enterobacter genera, including the assessment of nitrogen cycle gene activity. However, I leave this remark to the discretion of the editor and will not insist on the obligatory transfer of the text to a microbiological journal.
In describing the microanalysis of iron on the surface of cells, I would advise the authors to add elemental mapping of cells by iron content in order to provide additional evidence for this process.
I would advise the authors to expand the conclusion section to include the biogeochemical and ecological role of the processes observed by the authors of the manuscript.
Authors should redo the list of references in accordance with the rules of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents the study's results to investigate and compare efficienciencies of four Enterobacter strains in the kinetics of nitrate, iron(II), and nitrite and N2O production.
The manuscript demands careful reading and corrections.
Authors should carefully check the Instructions for Authors and adjust the manuscript.
- the first numbered reference in the paper is numbered 35. Therefore, all references should be renumerated.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for the valuable suggestions. Your kind consideration of this manuscript for publication in Molecules would be greatly appreciated. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments, and the response to the reviewer 2 comments was listed as follows:
Reviewer #2
Point 1: This manuscript presents the study's results to investigate and compare efficiency of four Enterobacter strains in the kinetics of nitrate, iron(II), and nitrite and N2O production.
Response 1: We really appreciate your comments. Your suggestion helps us a lot to improve the manuscript, and the point-to-point response had been shown as follows.
Point 2: The manuscript demands careful reading and corrections.
Response 2: Thank a lot for your comments and suggestion. The mistakes you pointed out have been corrected in submitted manuscript (Lines 128,184,229,244, and 275).
Point 3: Authors should carefully check the Instructions for Authors and adjust the manuscript.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We have revised and double checked the manuscript carefully.
Point 4: The first numbered reference in the paper is numbered 35. Therefore, all references should be renumerated.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have renumerated references and checked them throughout the manuscript.
