Assessment of Vinca rosea (Apocynaceae) Potentiality for Remediation of Crude Petroleum Oil Pollution of Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to revise the MS entitled “Assessment of Vinca rosea L. potentiality for remediation of soil crude petroleum oil pollution” by Ahmad K. Hegazy and his/her colleagues that was submitted to “sustainability”. This manuscript focuses on ecological remediation of oil contaminated soil. The MS submitted is suitable for sustainability, and some interesting results were showed. However, there are several requirements that have to consider by the authors. In this regard, the following comments are requested to be addressed by the authors:

 

1.         The Abstract section needs to be carefully revised. The innovation of the manuscript must be clearly stated in the text.

2.         Please carefully check the Figure and table and make the layout of the Figures more aesthetically pleasing, such as Table 2 The table should use a three line table.

3.         The discussion is not in-depth enough, please strengthen the discussion and comparative analysis

4.         Line 497 Catharanthus Roseus Should use italics.

5.         Please note that the format of references must be uniform. For example, Line 517, Line 497. In addition, some references are outdated.

I would suggest that the authors review and include the following recent studies to improve the manuscript.

Organic–inorganic composite modifiers enhance restoration potential of Nerium oleander L. to lead–zinc tailing: application of phytoremediation. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2023, DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-26359-w.

Lead responses and tolerance mechanisms of Koelreuteria paniculata: A newly potential plant for sustainable phytoremediation of Pb-contaminated soil [J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, 19(22), 14968.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled "Assessment of Vinca rosea L. potentiality for remediation of soil crude petroleum oil pollution"

1) The full scientific name of each species must be given together with the authority for its name when first mentioned in the abstract and the main text.

2) For the title, scientific names (without scientific authority) should be followed by the order and family placement.

3) Using these references to improve the phytoremediation part in the introduction

Aioub, A. A., Li, Y., Qie, X., Zhang, X., & Hu, Z. (2019). Reduction of soil contamination by cypermethrin residues using phytoremediation with Plantago major and some surfactants. Environmental Sciences Europe, 31, 1-12.

Aioub, A. A., Zuo, Y., Li, Y., Qie, X., Zhang, X., Essmat, N., ... & Hu, Z. (2021). Transcriptome analysis of Plantago major as a phytoremediator to identify some genes related to cypermethrin detoxification. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 5101-5115.

Aioub, A. A., Zuo, Y., Aioub, A. A., & Hu, Z. (2021). Biochemical and phytoremediation of Plantago major L. to protect tomato plants from the contamination of cypermethrin pesticide. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 43992-44001.

4) Author must mention the hypothesis at the end of the introduction.

5) modified the reference Hussein et al. (2022) [28]. in line 100.

6) Why the authors used these concentrations 1%, 3%, 5%, and 7% crude oil per soil?

7) Table 2 needs static analysis 

8) V. rosea in line 302 must be italic.

9) Authors must consider that the total petroleum hydrocarbon degradation process is not only due to the plant but also to the microbes in the soil. So, I strongly recommended increasing the treatment with:

a) V. rosea growing in pots containing sterilized soil polluted with 1%, 3%, 5%, and 7% oil by soil. 

b) The pots of sterilized polluted soil had the same concentrations of crude oil as the tested groups but without V. rosea plants.

10) Change all ppm in this manuscript to mg/kg or μg/g

11) Authors need to make a graphical abstract for the experimental design.

 

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

ok to accept.

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend accept this manuscript in the present form

 Minor editing of English language required