Electrokinetic Remediation in Marine Sediment: A Review and a Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the manuscript titled "Electrokinetic Remediation in Marine Sediment: A Review and 2 a Bibliometric Analysis" and I think it is a very usefull review on a topic that has scientific value, electrokinetic remediation.

I believe the manuscript can be published as is.

in line 342 two gaps are missing

Author Response

The authors appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. We provided to rectify the gaps missing in line 342.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focused on the chemistry and the science of Electrokinetic technology.  The explanations were well done, and the limitations of the various technologies reviewed by the authors were also well done.  As I read the paper, I hoped to find some financial modeling that would allow me to understand the scope of Electrokinetic technology applications.  For example, what physical areas were covered by inducing some of the suggested processes?  Are we talking about Square Meters or acres?  Were the reviewed papers performed in a laboratory, field, or harbor, and if so, what were the distances for electrode placement? I am practical, so as I read it? I was trying to format the economics of applying electrokinetic technology.  The authors fell short in answering issues addressing scale and costs. 

We are all looking for a solution to pollution in our waterways and soils. Again, as I read this paper, I was excited about the "possibilities" it presented; however, as I am new to this field, I found the presentation to be a good overview of the subject matter, and I could not criticize the content or the presentation as my expertise is not in this field. Still, the authors gave me a good taste of the technical aspects of each modality presented. My only criticism remains those practical omissions referenced above.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were a few minor errors in English that could easily be found with a good proofreader. 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. In response to the suggestions provided, we have included additional information on the cost and scale of electrokinetic remediation in the revised version of the manuscript. However, it is important to note that the available literature primarily consists of data from soil experiments or ex-situ treatment of dredged sediments, as well as laboratory-scale experiments, particularly concerning marine sediments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript provides an overview of various methods utilized for recycling contaminated sediments, with a particular focus on electrokinetic remediation principles, emphasizing the role of microorganisms. Additionally, it conducts a bibliometric analysis of pivotal articles in the field to illuminate key findings, especially those pertaining to the marine environment. The discussion delves into the limitations and risks associated with inadequate technology implementation, while also acknowledging its advantages for in-situ recycling in marine settings. The literature on electrodynamic remediation of saline sediments and its impact on microbial communities is comprehensively reviewed to assess the pros and cons of this method. This analysis is supported by extensive research and network diagrams. However, the abstract and introduction fail to sufficiently highlight the paper's innovation and research significance. It is recommended that these sections be expanded upon. Furthermore, there are deficiencies in the text's logical flow, structure, key content elaboration, and language expression, necessitating further revision and improvement. Specific suggestions for amendments are as follows: 1. Consider the paragraph structure to ensure coherence and logic throughout the article. Reevaluate the necessity of separate paragraphs in various sections (e.g., lines 7-12, 50-52, 53-55, 63-64 of the introduction), and ensure that the first line of each paragraph is not indented. 2. Line 57: "This electrochemical methodology uses current to remove toxic chemical ionic species from the soil and collects them at the electrodes." Verify the accuracy of this statement. 3. Evaluate the currency of references cited in line 63 of the introduction and update them if necessary. 4. In line 95 of the introduction, consider replacing "at each pH rate" with "at each pH". 5. Standardize the notation of ion symbols throughout the article (e.g., H+ and OH- in line 76, Cl- in line 116). 6. Line 145: Consider capitalizing the first letter of "electrokinetic–chemical oxidation/reduction". 7. Ensure consistency in font size and presentation method for chemical equations referenced in the article. 8. Maintain consistent spacing between charts and preceding paragraphs, and consider center-aligning chart titles. 9. Review the formatting of references to adhere to journal requirements and consult the author's guidelines for guidance. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

The authors appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. We provided to rectify the follow suggestions:

1. Consider the paragraph structure to ensure coherence and logic throughout the article. Reevaluate the necessity of separate paragraphs in various sections (e.g., lines 7-12, 50-52, 53-55, 63-64 of the introduction), and ensure that the first line of each paragraph is not indented.

We accepted the suggestion to separate the introduction in different paragraphs.

2. Line 57: "This electrochemical methodology uses current to remove toxic chemical ionic species from the soil and collects them at the electrodes." Verify the accuracy of this statement.

The all process is quite complicate to explain in detail. We add few references to support the statement.

3. Evaluate the currency of references cited in line 63 of the introduction and update them if necessary.

We cited this article because it was the first one, we found on the subject, as many other references were added at various points in the text.

4. In line 95 of the introduction, consider replacing "at each pH rate" with "at each pH".

We accepted the suggestion.

5. Standardize the notation of ion symbols throughout the article (e.g., H+ and OH- in line 76, Cl- in line 116).

Done.

6. Line 145: Consider capitalizing the first letter of "electrokinetic–chemical oxidation/reduction".

Done

7. Ensure consistency in font size and presentation method for chemical equations referenced in the article.

Done, but unfortunately the font is different for the equation editor used.

8. Maintain consistent spacing between charts and preceding paragraphs, and consider center-aligning chart titles.

Done.

9. Review the formatting of references to adhere to journal requirements and consult the author's guidelines for guidance.

Done.

Regarding the criticism of not sufficiently highlighting the innovation and research significance of the paper in the abstract and introduction, this paper has the aim of reviewing all the articles that are present in the literature. We have described the state of the art of the technique in order to point out the pros and contras. We have also highlighted the gaps that still exist and what aspect needs further investigation.