Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Influence of Parking Penalties on Bike-Sharing System with Willingness Constraints: A Case Study of Beijing, China
Previous Article in Journal
Behavior and Biochemical Mechanism of High Iron Attapulgite Dosages Affecting Sewage Sludge Composting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/su151612522
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparing Different Strategies for Cr(VI) Bioremediation: Bioaugmentation, Biostimulation, and Bioenhancement

Sustainability 2023, 15(16), 12522; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612522
by Xiao Yan 1,2,3,4,5,†, Zhenghao Yan 6,†, Xuezhe Zhu 1,2,3,4,7, Yupin Zhou 1,2,3,4, Guoying Ma 1,2,3,4, Shuangquan Li 1,2,3,4, Xingyu Liu 1,2,3,4 and Mingjiang Zhang 1,2,3,4,*
Reviewer 1:
Md. Azizul Haque
Reviewer 2:
Huan Yang
Reviewer 3:
Chiew-Yen Wong
Sustainability 2023, 15(16), 12522; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612522
Submission received: 12 June 2023 / Revised: 25 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 17 August 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the manuscript should be revised as per the text. Moreover, extensive English edition is required by a professional editor. The following comments should consider before publishing this article.

1>. Abstract lines 17-24 faced serious grammatical error. It semes the lines were paraphrased in software. Please rewrite those sentences carefully to bloom your insights.

2.> 2.2. Microorganisms and medium: Lines 113-115: Stenotrophomonas, Ochrobactrum, Pseudomonas and Bacillus, native microbes with the high capacity of removing Cr(VI).... please cite your previous published works here. grammatical error is also found here.

3>. References are missing in the methodology section: 2.4.2. Total chromium, Cr (VI) and Cr(â…¢) determination.

 

 

 

 

professional English edition is required

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation” (ID: sustainability-2473354). We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer 1:

General Comments:

The title of the manuscript should be revised as per the text. Moreover, extensive English edition is required by a professional editor. The following comments should consider before publishing this article.

Response: We appreciate your comments about the manuscript. We have revised the title of the article from "A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation" to "Comparing different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation: bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement". We also reviewed the English version of the manuscript and revised it by a professional editor. I believe the language has been improved. We have responded to each of your specific comments below.

Specific comments:

  1. Abstract lines 17-24 faced serious grammatical error. It semes the lines were paraphrased in software. Please rewrite those sentences carefully to bloom your insights.

Response: Thanks. We checked these sentences carefully and revised them carefully.

  1. 2.2. Microorganisms and medium: Lines 113-115: Stenotrophomonas, Ochrobactrum, Pseudomonas and Bacillus, native microbes with the high capacity of removing Cr(VI).... please cite your previous published works here. grammatical error is also found here.

Response: Thanks. According to your comment, we cite our previous published work. We have also revised the grammatical error.

  1. References are missing in the methodology section: 2.4.2. Total chromium, Cr (VI) and Cr(â…¢) determination.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors evaluate the potential of different treatments involved NA, BS, BA, and BE in terms of Cr(VI) removal, persistent stability, and ecological safety to bioremediate the CSS. The results indicate that BE exhibit the best remediation effect on CSS, followed by BA, BS, and NA. However, there are some problems that the authors should notice. I suggested its acceptance for publication after some revision.

1. The significant decrease in pH observed in different experimental remediation systems needs to be explained in the manuscript.

2. The relationship between Eh values and the effectiveness of bioremediation in the remediation system should be elucidated.

3. The article should include a schematic diagram to illustrate the process of Cr(VI) biological removal.

4. The compounds of Cr(VI) transformed into after bioremediation should be provided.

5. For different treatments of the NA, BS, BA, and BE, why the BE is considered as an efficient and sustainable method? The structure-function relationship should be illustrated.

6. The format of reference should be uniform.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to reviewer:

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation” (ID: sustainability-2473354). We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer 2:

General Comments:

Authors evaluate the potential of different treatments involved NA, BS, BA, and BE in terms of Cr(VI) removal, persistent stability, and ecological safety to bioremediate the CSS. The results indicate that BE exhibit the best remediation effect on CSS, followed by BA, BS, and NA. However, there are some problems that the authors should notice. I suggested its acceptance for publication after some revision.

Response: We appreciate your comments about the manuscript. According to your comment, We have revised this manuscript.

Specific comments:

  1. The significant decrease in pH observed in different experimental remediation systems needs to be explained in the manuscript.

Response: Thanks. The drop in pH is mainly caused by the action of oxidising bacteria, We have also explained this in the manuscript.

  1. The relationship between Eh values and the effectiveness of bioremediation in the remediation system should be elucidated.

Response: Thanks. The Eh value is a direct reflection of the redox atmosphere of the system, and bioreduction is one of the main mechanisms of bioremediation of Cr(VI); the lower the Eh value, the stronger the reducing atmosphere, the more favourable the growth of reducing bacteria and the more favourable the remediation of Cr(VI).

  1. The article should include a schematic diagram to illustrate the process of Cr(VI) biological removal.

Response: Thanks. We have included the schematic diagram in the latest manuscript.

  1. The compounds of Cr(VI) transformed into after bioremediation should be provided.

Response: Thanks. There are three different mechanisms for bioremediation of Cr(VI): biosorption, bioreduction, and biomineralization. Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) analysis showed that Cr(VI) was adsorbed by functional groups in EPS to form a chelate compound. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis determined that the stable Cr(III) compounds and mineral crystals which contain chromium gradually formed during the bioremediation process. Our team has published the relevant research results in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research. The article title is “Lab-scale evaluation of the microbial bioremediation of Cr(VI): contributions of biosorption, bioreduction, and biomineralization”.

  1. For different treatments of the NA, BS, BA, and BE, why the BE is considered as an efficient and sustainable method? The structure-function relationship should be illustrated.

Response: Thanks. Firstly, the removal rate of Cr(VI) in the BE was the highest. The variation of Eh values indicated all systems translated oxidation state into reduction continuously except for the NA and BS during the bioremediation process. Among them, the BE decreased from 386 mV to below zero in the first 21 days, and then reached the minimum value of -358 mV in 42 days. Secondly, after bioremediation, the Tessier sequential extraction analyzed in the BE, stable chromium was up to 97%. Thirdly, the Stenotrophomonas, Ochrobactrum and Azomonas, as the bioremediation microbes, were enriched in the BE in comparison with the others.

  1. The format of reference should be uniform.

Response: Thanks. We have revised the reference format in our latest manuscripts.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall the idea of manuscript is good, however, most sentence are hardly understand due to grammatical errors and some sentences are hanging. Please use the scientific way to describe your results and discussion

Please refer to attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf


Author Response

Response to reviewer:

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation” (ID: sustainability-2473354). We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer 3:

General Comments:

Overall the idea of manuscript is good, however, most sentence are hardly understand due to grammatical errors and some sentences are hanging. Please use the scientific way to describe your results and discussion.

Response: Thanks. We reviewed the English version of the manuscript based on your comments and asked English experts to revise it. I believe the manuscript's English level has been greatly improved.

Specific comments:

  1. Title:

A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation

Can be revised to:

Comparing different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation: bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 18 To “reach an change” to “to achieve an”

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 18 21 Please rephrase. Sentence not in good flow.

Response: Thanks. We have rephrased it.

  1. Line 32-33 sentence hanging, do not start the sentence with suggesting.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 33-34 By comparison, the first option for remediation effects of the CSS was the BE, following by the BA, BS and NA Please rewrite this sentence. What do you mean by remediation effects of the CSS? Grammatical error. First option can be revised to best option.

Response: Thanks. We have rephrased it.

  1. Line 43-44 same meaning with line 40-41. Please revise from line 40-44.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 50-54 Sentence too long, please split to few sentences and rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 59 the population change to in population.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 60-61 sentence hanging, please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have rephrased.

  1. Line 62 several microbial species with producing acids change to some acid producing microorganisms.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 63 nutrition change to nutrient.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 63 whose metabolism is increased? Please state clearly

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 64 Do not start the sentence with which.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 60-65 suggest to rewrite and rephrase. Grammatically error.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 67 of change to in.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 68 are change to have

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 68 to remove change to in removing

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 71 Sulfate s should be small letter

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 71 isolating change to isolated

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 71-72 what do you mean by different sites? Which site? Please state or describe clearly the sites

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 74 - concluded change to reported

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 75 respectively is missing after the percentage

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 75 Above was not alone change to In addition

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 78 these introduced microorganisms, do you mean exogenous microorganism?

Response: Thanks. The microbes were isolated from the CSS.

  1. Line 82 above problem change to these limitation , and remove the.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 85 to remove Cr(VI) change to of Cr(VI) removal

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 88 can reduce change to was reported able to.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 90 what do you mean by adverse microbial community succession.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it. Several microbes with acid-producing have a adverse influence on bioremediation of Cr(VI).

  1. Line 98 Which one was the best removal efficiency of Cr(VI) in all bioremediation strategies change to Which method was the most efficient in removing Cr(VI).

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 104 remove here.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 108 were change to have. Please state the pH reading instead of just mention higher pH. Please be specific

Response: Thanks. We have revised it in the part of “result”.

  1. Line 110 remove the

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 114 rephrase to Native microbes namely Stenotrophomonas, Ochrobactrum, Pseudomonas and Bacillus

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 120 to recover the cells' activity.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it..

  1. Line 121-122 - Confuse! The table 2 showing BA studies are with deionised water, but you mentioned it was with BMA and BMB for BA studies. Can you please check?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 127-132 Please check grammar, too many the use of the Table 2 / experiment design - what is the reason why BE is with BMA and not BMB? why not include BMB as another BE system?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 144 what do you mean by abandoned.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 207-208 hardly understand, pls rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 211-212 - what do you mean by slowly weakening? there is dramatically drop in pH for some system. Please re-interpret your result based on the graph.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 215 and entire results and discussion sections if the term significant is used, please state the P<0.05 or P<0.01. The term only can be used if you have done the statistical analysis! Please check the whole sections.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. 4 Line 217 - according to the graph, it is decreased dramatically instead of gradually

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 217-218 below zero in 21 days - it only for BA1 and BE but not BA2, so the statement is wrong, please check your graph.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 237-238 sentence hanging.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 243 do not start the sentence with Suggesting that.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 244-247 - suggest to include the specific growth rate to prove which system has the faster bacteria growth rate.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 275 - what do you mean by limited?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 286 why there are 2 values for BA? Please state clearly.

Response: Thanks. According to experimental design, the difference of BA1 and BA2 was the microbial species. The detail information was shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The information of experimental design in different systems.

Bioremediation strategies

Medium (mL)

CSS (g)

Microorganism

Inoculation size(v/v)

NA

Deionized water (300)

180

-

-

BS1

BMA (300)

 

-

-

BS2

BMB (300)

 

-

-

BA1

Deionized water (300)

180

native microbes

10

BA2

Deionized water (300)

180

SRB

10

BE

BMA (300)

180

native microbes

10
  1. Line 299 Please describe the circle bar in the caption of Figure 6; statistically analysis should be included.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 327 what is indicate by the line curve in the figure 7? Please state clearly

Response: Thanks. The curve in Figure 7 refers to the change in OD600 value.

  1. Line 333 please rephrase

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 339 Please move the Figure 4 to the appropriate section

Response: Thanks. We have adjusted the position of Figure 4.

  1. Line 342-343 instead of describing the OD, suggest to calculate the specific growth rate.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 353 highly change to higher.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 355 was causing change to was caused.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 358 if it has been reported early by other researchers, then please state 'reported' rather than 'believed'.

Response: Thanks. W We have revised it.

  1. Line 361-362 with 280 mg/kg Hg contamination.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 366-373 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 378-386 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

59.Line 391-393 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 398-402 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 412 are you sure is Figure 4?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it. That was Figure 5.

  1. Line 421-424 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line437 highest change to increased.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 437 The explanation was not a good term to use.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 439 What is these referring to?

Response: Thanks. These refer to the organic matter.

  1. Line 441 highest change to increased.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it..

  1. Line 446-456 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 456-466 what do you mean by effectively limited?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 467-468 what activity is higher? what do you mean by would work for a more extended period? please use scientific term.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 470-471 sentence is hanging.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 476 ingenious?? Is it indigenous?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

72.Line 484-487 please rephrase.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Line 489-501 please rephase. Hardly understand.

Response: Thanks. We have rephased it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

In this study, the authors aim to evaluate various of strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation; namely bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement in treating chromium smelting slags (CSS). The authors further examine the chemical fractions and leaching toxicity of samples to determine the stability of the CSS for long-term. The microbial communities were studied to assess the activity and population of functional microbes to achieve to achieve long-term sustainability of the bioremediation. To provide feedbacks to the authors, I have the following suggestions:

Page 1 Lines 19: Change ‘evaluated’ to ‘evaluate’.

Page 2 Line 62-65: Double check the position of the full stop.

Page 2-3 Lines 97-101: Reconstruct these lines into xx.

Page 3 Line 107: Typography on ‘physic-chemical’? not physico-chemical?

Page 3 Line 110: Authors did not discuss XPS methods in the materials and method section.

Page 3 Line 117: What is the initial pH of the culture?

Table 3: Table 3 to be rescaled so that the texts in the column are not too tight.

Page 4 Line 151-153: What is the volume of the acid mixture (sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid) and ammonium persulfate used? Please state in the text.

Page 6 Line 221-222: Please provide the possible type of nutrients being consumed.

Page 6 Line 223-224: Please cite related references to support your claims.

Page 7: Please re-arrange the Figure 4 under the section of 3.3  

Page 10: Typographical in caption of Figure 4. Subfigure of “ (a) The variation of OD600 level.” belonging to (b).

Page 10: Figure 4 need to be rescaled so that the ordinate value is not too tight.

Page 5 Line 191: In this subsection, authors mentioned regarding the soil pH. In subsection 3.2, do those pH values in Figure 2 refer to soil pH?

Author Response

Response to reviewer:

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A comparative study of bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement: different strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation” (ID: sustainability-2473354). We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer 4:

General Comments:

In this study, the authors aim to evaluate various of strategies for Cr(VI) bioremediation; namely bioaugmentation, biostimulation, and bioenhancement in treating chromium smelting slags (CSS). The authors further examine the chemical fractions and leaching toxicity of samples to determine the stability of the CSS for long-term. The microbial communities were studied to assess the activity and population of functional microbes to achieve to achieve long-term sustainability of the bioremediation. To provide feedbacks to the authors, I have the following suggestions:

Response: Thanks. According to your comment, we have revised them.

Specific comments:

  1. Page 1 Lines 19: Change ‘evaluated’ to ‘evaluate’.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Page 2 Line 62-65: Double check the position of the full stop.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Page 2-3 Lines 97-101: Reconstruct these lines into xx.

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Page 3 Line 107: Typography on ‘physic-chemical’? not physico-chemical?

Response: Thanks. We have revised it.

  1. Page 3 Line 110: Authors did not discuss XPS methods in the materials and method section.

Response: Thanks. We did not use XPS in this study.

  1. Page 3 Line 117: What is the initial pH of the culture?

Response: Thanks. Neutral pH.

  1. Table 3: Table 3 to be rescaled so that the texts in the column are not too tight.

Response: Thanks. We will entrust the editor to handle this matter.

  1. Page 4 Line 151-153: What is the volume of the acid mixture (sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid) and ammonium persulfate used? Please state in the text.

Response: Thanks. We cite the reference.

  1. Page 6 Line 221-222: Please provide the possible type of nutrients being consumed.

Response: Thanks. The specific type of nutrients was described in the “Materials and methods” section and the “Supplementary Information” section.

  1. Page 6 Line 223-224: Please cite related references to support your claims.

Response: Thanks. We have cited related references.

  1. Page 7: Please re-arrange the Figure 4 under the section of 3.3

Response: Thanks. We have rearranged Figure 4.

  1. Page 10: Typographical in caption of Figure 4. Subfigure of “ (a) The variation of OD600 level.” belonging to (b).

Response: Thanks. We have corrected this error in the manuscript.

  1. Page 10: Figure 4 need to be rescaled so that the ordinate value is not too tight.

Response: Thanks. We have made the changes you requested.

  1. Page 5 Line 191: In this subsection, authors mentioned regarding the soil pH. In subsection 3.2, do those pH values in Figure 2 refer to soil pH?

Response: Thanks. The pH mentioned here refers to the pH of the supernatant in the system, we have also modified this statement in the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved well, it can be accepted.

 

minor spelling and grammatical error should be checked

 

Back to TopTop