Potential of Epipremnum aureum and Bacopa monnieri (L.) Wettst for Saline Phytoremediation in Artificial Wetlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

water-2070495-peer-review-v1 This manuscript evaluated the phytoremediative potential of Epipremnum aureum and Bacopa monnieri to improve the chemical properties of irrigation water exposed to two saline concentrations: highly saline (EC 2000 μS cm-1) and severely saline (EC 4000 μS cm-1). The topic has certain significance to solve practical problems. The experimental design is reasonable, the data are detailed and solid, and the conclusions need to be confirmed. The innovation meets the requirements of the journal, therefore, I recommend major revision. Specific comments are below: 1.Introduction part: lack of specific results, it looks like science education rather than research progress. 2.Why chose the two salt concentrations? 3.Check the equation of Phytoremediation Capacity (PHC) or PHC=(Naf * DWf - Nai * DWi )*DP. 4.Transpiration rate is an important indicator that can be estimated by water loss. 5.Four important results should be clearly showed in the manuscript. First of all, the biomass before and after experiment should be provided as a figure to prove that “ the species E. aureum and B. monnieri tolerate the two salt concentrations proposed in this study (high [2000 μS cm-1 ] and severe [4000 μS cm-1 ])”. Secondly, the PHC and reducing rate of salinity should be provided as figures to prove that“have the ability to reduce the salinity of the irrigation water by improving its chemical properties and reducing the potential damage”.The last one, the relationship between tolerance and uptake in plants should be analyzed. Minor problems: 1.Line 14:eigth treatments or eight treatments? 2.Line 52-60: please give the name of halophyte species in these studies and data of phytoremediative performance. 6.Line 247-251: these data can’t be showed in figure or table？ 7.Table 2: these data should be checked.

Author Response

See attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments

Title of the Manuscript: Potential of Epipremnum aureum and Bacopa monnieri (L.) Wettst for saline phytoremediation in artificial wetlands

 

 

Abstract: The abstract is not clear, there is need to update with the results as briefly.

 

Introduction: This part also needs to improve the background of present study with latest literature and current status and past status of present studies should be discuss.

 

2.2 Vegetable Matter

 

Line Number.89: Bacopa monnieri were should be corrected as ‘Bacopa monnieri was’

 

 

In table 1 & 2 title, the name of the plants should be in italic also throughout manuscript

 

All the methodology, needed appropriate reference.

 

For chemical analysis of NACL with added and without added, the data is not clear, the author can give evidence of the pictures or anything else as supplementary file.  

 

The author should justify the importance of the present studies and how it would help the scientific community.  

 

The scientific name of the selected plants, first time mention is needed full name afterwards it can be abbreviated.

 

2.10 Phytoremediation Capacity (PHC)

Line no.182: The sentence ‘different treatments was’ should be corrected as ‘different treatments were’

 

In table 1; There is need proper foot notes for all the symbol used in the table. For example, treatment 1 mean for what?

There is need moderate English correction in throughout the manuscript.

 

Recommendation

The manuscript needs major revision

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find it attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has addressed all the reviewer comments perfectly. The present for the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Thank you

Regards

Author Response

Thanks for your time.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf