Salt Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Effect of Combing It with Topsoil Filters on Biofiltration of CaCl2 Contaminated Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. abstraction: I can understand the experiment design and results, however, I can not read them in logically. Please rewrite this section.
2. line 36-42, revise them. Grammar, expression etc.
3. it shows an interesting research work, also is of great significance for repairing contaminated soil, however, the English writing discount readers interests. Please improve it.
4. line 120, In Expt. 2, two types of topsoil filters (expanded carbon and activated carbon) were added to the substrate bottom at 20 % (w/w)…… expression of experiment 2 was not clear.
5. one question I don’t understand, line 128-129 “After preparing the CaCl2 solution, the plants were supplied with 200 mL of de-icing salt solutions of different concentrations in each pot once every two weeks.” When giving water to the pot（11 cm × 9 cm），does solution directly leak out? If so, authors check ECe of leachate, for what purpose? Why not directly check the solution inside of pot?
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneed extensive editing
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
(Round 1)
Title: Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Comtaminated Soil (MS ID: Sustainabilty-3127661)
The author appreciate the reviewer and the editor for their constructive comments and suggestions. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments. The changes in the manuscript are shown in red text.
Point 1: abstraction: I can understand the experiment design and results, however, I can not read them in logically. Please rewrite this section.
Response 1: The author appreciate the reviewer’s attentive comments. As suggested by the the reviewer, English grammar and spelling errors have been corrected throughout the Abstract section (lines 7-22).
Point 2: line 36-42, revise them. Grammar, expression etc.
Response 2: Per the reviewr’s comment, line 36-42 sentence has been corrected as follow (lines 34-40):
→ Salt phytoremediation can be simply be defined as the accumulation of salt or the cultivation of salt-tolerant plants to reduce salinity. However, due to their low ecological and economic impacts, using high-salt accumulating plants for the phytoremediation of chloride-rich soils, wastewaters, and wastes is of great interest [4]. Therefore, phytoremediation of saline environments exhibits unique characteristics; it necessarites the use of plant species capable ofsurviving and adapting to excessive salt ions, and managing salt ion concentrations through various mechanisms [5].
Point 3: it shows an interesting research work, also is of great significance for repairing contaminated soil, however, the English writing discount readers interests. Please improve it.
Response 3: As the reviewr point out, grammer errors have been corrected throughout the manuscript and edited by a native speaker.
Point 4: line 120, In Expt. 2, two types of topsoil filters (expanded carbon and activated carbon) were added to the substrate bottom at 20 % (w/w)…… expression of experiment 2 was not clear.
Response 4: Following the reviewer’s comments, the sentence (line 120) have been modified to clearify as follow (lines 114-116):
→ In the second experiment, two types of topsoil filters were each incorporated at 20% of the substrate volume, after which reeds were transplanted and subjected to high concentrations of CaCl2 (66.7 mM or 10 g· L−1).
Point 5: one question I don’t understand, line 128-129 “After preparing the CaCl2 solution, the plants were supplied with 200 mL of de-icing salt solutions of different concentrations in each pot once every two weeks.” When giving water to the pot（11 cm × 9 cm），does solution directly leak out? If so, authors check ECe of leachate, for what purpose? Why not directly check the solution inside of pot?
Response 5: The author appreciate the reviewer’s knowledge and detailed expantation. The Materials and Methods section has been modified throughout to clarify the main purpose of the current study. As the reviewer guided, the sentences (lines 128-129) has been revised to clearly reflect the contents and relevant reference has been added (Ref # 13) as follows (lines 124-131):
→ Plants were watered 200 mL of tap water once every 3–4 days to prevent drying out. After preparing the CaCl2 solution, 9 replicate pots of planted plus unplanted pots were dosed with 200 mL of de-icing salt solutions of varying concentrations every two weeks from June to August. Leachate from the pots was collected 24h later in a 14 cm diameter plastic water tray placed underneath each pot [13]. Samples were gathered from each treatment, and were stored in refrigerator for laboratory analysis. Leachate quality testing was carried out within a week of collection.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper titled "Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Contaminated Soil" addresses the impact of CaCl2 on the selected plant species. While the paper is generally reasonable, several points need to be addressed. Here are my specific comments:
- The title should be modified to reflect the correct usage of "synergistic effect," which typically refers to the combined effect of more than one factor or elements. Additionally, replace "De-icing salt (CaCl2) contaminated soil" with "CaCl2 contaminated soil."
- In the abstract, avoid mentioning experiment numbers such as 1 and 2; use plain text instead.
- The document needs a thorough revision to improve language clarity and remove minor linguistic errors.
- Ensure units and their respective values are consistently formatted throughout the text, preferably within parentheses or without parentheses altogether. For instance, (105±2) ºC, (1-5.5) Kg m-2, etc are wrong.
- Remove the space between numerical values and the percent sign (%) throughout the text.
- Use the full name "calcium chloride" at its first mention, followed by "CaCl2" in subsequent mentions.
- Standardize the representation of species names; use the abbreviated form after the first mention.
- Either remove Figure 1 or include a real picture of the experiment.
- In line 160, for pH = (.......), remove the unnecessary parentheses.
- Replace the existing Figure 2 with a high-resolution version.
- Define the labels "a, b, ab, b1," etc., in Table 1 as a footnote to the table.
- Clarify the incomplete statement in line 203, which currently reads "except for count……."
13. The labeling within the graph of Figure 5 is confusing, with labels such as a, b, c, bc inside the bars and ab, cd, bc on top of the bars. Clarify this in the caption or simplify the labeling.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate polishing is highly recommended.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
(Round 1)
Title: Tolerance of Phragmites australis and synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Comtaminated Soil (MS ID: Sustainabilty-3127661)
The author appreciate the reviewer and the editor for their constructive comments and suggestions. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments. The changes in the manuscript are shown in red text.
The paper titled "Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Contaminated Soil" addresses the impact of CaCl2 on the selected plant species. While the paper is generally reasonable, several points need to be addressed. Here are my specific comments:
Point 1: The title should be modified to reflect the correct usage of "synergistic effect," which typically refers to the combined effect of more than one factor or elements. Additionally, replace "De-icing salt (CaCl2) contaminated soil" with "CaCl2 contaminated soil."
Response 1: The authors appriciate the reviewer’s constructive comments. As the reviewer suggested, the title of the current study has been modified to clearly reflect the contents as follows:
→ Salt Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Biofiltration Effects on Topsoil Filters in CaCl2 Contaminated Soil
Point 2: In the abstract, avoid mentioning experiment numbers such as 1 and 2; use plain text instead.
Response 2: The sentence including the experment number ‘1 and 2’ has been changed to ‘first and second’ throughout the Abstract section (lines 11-12).
Point 3: The document needs a thorough revision to improve language clarity and remove minor linguistic errors.
Response 3: The author appriciate the reviewer’s through review. As the reviewer pointed out by the reviewer, English grammar and spelling errors have been corrected throughout the manuscript.
Point 4: Ensure units and their respective values are consistently formatted throughout the text, preferably within parentheses or without parentheses altogether. For instance, (105±2) ºC, (1-5.5) Kg m-2, etc are wrong.
Response 4: As recommended by the reviewer, the parentheses has been omitted.
Point 5: Remove the space between numerical values and the percent sign (%) throughout the text.
Response 5: Throughout the manuscript, the space between numerical value and the percent sign has been removed.
Point 6: Use the full name "calcium chloride" at its first mention, followed by "CaCl2" in subsequent mentions.
Response 6: Per the reviewr’s comment, the ‘calcium chloride’ at its first mention, have been changed to ‘CaCl2’ subsequent mentions.
Point 7: Standardize the representation of species names; use the abbreviated form after the first mention.
Response 7: The author appreciate the reviewr’s throughout comment. The first mentioned as ‘Phragmites autralis’ have been changed to ‘P. autralis ’ in later mentions.
Point 8: Either remove Figure 1 or include a real picture of the experiment.
Response 8: As recommended by the reviewer, the ‘Figure 1’ has been deleted.
Point 9: In line 160, for pH = (.......), remove the unnecessary parentheses.
Response 9: As the reviewer pointed out, the parentheses has been removed.
Point 10: Replace the existing Figure 2 with a high-resolution version.
Response 10: Per the reviewer’s comment, ‘Figure 2’ has been replaced with high-resolution version.
Point 11: Define the labels "a, b, ab, b1," etc., in Table 1 as a footnote to the table.
Response 11: Based on the reviewer’s comments, the footnote of ‘Table 1’ and ‘Table 2’ have been changed to “z, y” and described detailed information.
Point 12: Clarify the incomplete statement in line 203, which currently reads "except for count……."
Response 12: The author appreciate the reviewer’s insight. Per the reviewer’ s comment, the sentence has been corrected as follws (lines 196-197):
→ Shoot fresh weight of P. australis showed no significant differences depending on CaCl2 concentration (p ≤ 0.01) except for the control.
Point 13: The labeling within the graph of Figure 5 is confusing, with labels such as a, b, c, bc inside the bars and ab, cd, bc on top of the bars. Clarify this in the caption or simplify the labeling.
Response 13: According to the reviewer’s, the old ‘Figure 5 (now Figure 4)’ have been modified so that they can be seen clearly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsauthors had revised all sections, However, some sentence writing still need to be improved, e.g. the description of experimental treatments. suggest using short sentence. In addition, some writing skills still need to be improved in the description of some methods. For example, 200ml solution, author should tell the concentration directly, rather than let the reader speculate from the previous description.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
(Round 2)
Title: Tolerance of Phragmites australis and Synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Comtaminated Soil (MS ID: Sustainabilty-3127661)
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper once again. We have carefully revised the manuscript once again to reflect the reviewers last comments. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments. The changes in the manuscript are shown in red text.
Point 1: authors had revised all sections, However, some sentence writing still need to be improved, e.g. the description of experimental treatments. suggest using short sentence. In addition, some writing skills still need to be improved in the description of some methods. For example, 200ml solution, author should tell the concentration directly, rather than let the reader speculate from the previous description.
Response 1: The paper has been significantly improved thanks the reviewer’s comments. The authors corrected grammatical errors have been corrected throughout the manuscript. In addition, we have described detailed information on methods in the Materials an Method section as follows.
→After preparing CaCl2 solutions, 9 replicate pots of planted plus unplanted pots were dosed with 200 mL of de-icing salt solutions at concentrations of 0, 1, 2, 5, and 10 g· L−1, respectively, every two weeks from June to August. (lines 125-127)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have addressed most of my comments accordingly. They are requested to go through the text once again and remove minor grammatical errors. Check Line 34, "can be simply be defined" and "Line 73,74: Use technical term for "land plants", there are two dots before and after [1]." etc.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Polishing for minor languestic changes still required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
(Round 2)
Title: Tolerance of Phragmites australis and synergistic Biofiltration Effects of Topsoil Filters on De-icing Salts (CaCl2) Comtaminated Soil (MS ID: Sustainabilty-3127661)
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper once again. We have carefully revised the manuscript once again to reflect the reviewers last comments. Please see our point-by-point response to the comments. The changes in the manuscript are shown in red text.
Point 1: Authors have addressed most of my comments accordingly. They are requested to go through the text once again and remove minor grammatical errors. Check Line 34, "can be simply be defined" and "Line 73,74: Use technical term for "land plants", there are two dots before and after [1]." etc.
Response 1: We would like to thank the reviewer for insightful comments. The authors corrected grammatical errors have been revised throughout the manuscript. In addition, the sentence pointed out by the reviewer has been removed. We hope that our revised paper is improved by responding to the reviewer’s comments.
