Phytoremediation of Cu and Mn from Industrially Polluted Soil: An Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Approach
, Tehreem Ayaz 4, Fazlullah Akhtar 5, Abdel-Rhman Z. Gaafar 6, Selvam Sekar 7 and Sadia Butt 8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-
-
The manuscript presents a promising study on the phytoremediation of Cu and Mn from industrially polluted soil. However, there are several major revisions required before this work can be considered for publication.
-
Validation of Results: While the paper presents promising results, a validation of the phytoremediation efficacy in real-world scenarios is lacking. Discuss the feasibility and scalability of implementing your approach on a larger scale, considering practical challenges and potential benefits.
-
Statistical Analysis: The statistical analysis provided is minimal. Consider incorporating appropriate statistical tests to validate the significance of the observed trends and differences in metal accumulation and soil improvement between control and treated groups.
-
Toxicity Considerations: Address potential concerns about the accumulation of Cu and Mn within the plant biomass. Elaborate on how these metals' concentration in the plant tissues could affect the plants themselves and any organisms that might consume them.
-
Citations and Recent Studies: Ensure that your references are up-to-date and encompass the most relevant and recent studies in the field of phytoremediation. This will strengthen the credibility of your work and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the current literature.
-
Conclusion Clarity: Revise and restructure the conclusion section to succinctly summarize the main findings and their implications. Emphasize how your study contributes to advancing the understanding of phytoremediation techniques for Cu and Mn removal.
-
Minor editing of English language required
-
Author Response
We are most grateful for the comments of both reviewers, which were invaluable in helping us to improve the manuscript. The paper has been revised to address the points raised as detailed below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interestin straighforward research paper. Some comments below
1. quality of English is not good. There are some sentences that are clearly illegible. Some examples are given here
In the 54 industrial areas, the problems linked to sediment and soil contamination through HMs 55 attained more attention in developing and developed nations
In Pakistan, the wastes of industrial is a threatening and worse cause of sediment, water 66 and soil pollution
eventually become less striking to the industrialist
These methods have attained sub- 70 stantial momentum in the previous few decade
There were different studies reported on GAIE from 1996–2014 showed higher level of 94 toxic and metals in groundwater, plants and soil.
, the target areas 137 are regarded as areas irrigated with WW flushing by industries
etc.
Unless the manuscript is read by a fluent English speaker it cannot be published
2. there is too much textbook information (general knowledge) in the introduction that should be erased eg that HM are bad for health, the definitions of phytoremedition etc. please either erase completely or significantly shorten the following lines
52-65
70-82
83-93
3. some of the data shown in lines 94-116 should be removed to the discussion
4. you keep using abbreviations eg HM, GAIE that you never described first give the full name and then give the abbreviation
5. in the end of the introduction you have to explain why this is important for an international audience and not eg for a local journal
6. materials and methods are not properly described. If this is not corrected the manuscript cannot be published. Give a separate section entitled chemicals and reagents and describe the manufacturer, city and country of origin of the chemicals. For all equipment eg grinding, filter papers, oven, centrifuge, AAS, phmeter, etc give model if available, manufacturer, city and country of origin
7. I am confused by so many results and I am not sure that they have been described in the materials and methods section. for example how you measured COD etc? you never describe the methods. Either descibe the methos or erase the results. There are too many substrates that you desribe that you analyzed, please organise better in the materials and methods. also the formulas of BCF etc please erase the line between the formula and the numbering and also make numbering 1, 2, 3 instead of i, ii, iii
8. I am not sure that you give the results on bcf etc that you describe in method. Please highlight these results
9. again, in the results there are so many tables and figures that are impossible to follow. Please consider putting some supplementary material (the figs should be up to 5 maximum and tables should be 1/2 of presen number). all tables and figs should correspond to some SPECIFIC method and substrate you desscribed in materials and methods. please correcr
10. the figures are not informative, the reader is not obliged to search each time what CT1, T1 etc mean please explain abbreviations in the figure title
11. I am very confused with the statistics, what exactly you compared to what? eg the soil wihout the plant compared the soil with the plant? if you have more than 2 groups you cannot do a t-test. You have to comment on the normality of the data otherwise you cannot do a t-test. also the t-test results should be shown as p<0.05 on the figures and on the tables. please correct and amend all results
12. for so many results the discussion is quite short. please use in the discussion some of the references of the introduction. please add more and updated references at least 10 more eg Charvalas et al Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:3858–3863
13. please make sure that all references are written in line with the journal
14. the current abstract makes no sense. Please rewrite explaining the problem, the qualitative results and the general usefulness. do not give values in the abstract
should be corrected
Author Response
We are most grateful for the comments of both reviewers, which were invaluable in helping us to improve the manuscript. The paper has been revised to address the points raised as detailed below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted in current form
Reviewer 2 Report
accepted
accepted
