Particulate Matter and Trace Metal Retention Capacities of Six Tree Species: Implications for Improving Urban Air Quality
, Yu Li 1, Qiaochu Wang 1, Tong Zhang 1, Huan Meng 1,2, Jialian Gong 1,2 and Zhi Zhang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, the paper titled "An investigation on leaf retention capacity and trace element for particulate matter as affected by pollution levels and leaf traits" presents quite an interesting investigation. The weakest part of the manuscript is the abstract, which should be rewritten in a better manner and style. I suggest also deleting the article 'an' in the title. Lines 45-46 and line 126 are missing references. Table 1 is missing the transcript of some abbreviations. Writing of values and units should be reviewed (units cannot be separated by a line, and the writing style of units must be uniform). I suggest also resizing the figures because Fig.4 looks too big compared to Fig.3, 5, 6, and 7, in which the size of the text can be magnified. The list of references also needs corrections because journal title abbreviations are mixed with full titles, DOI numbers are not indicated, and other relevant information for several articles is missing. Regarding methodology, I wonder how Hg was detected because it is not as easy as for other elements to perform its quantification. Indicated sample treatment is applicable for heavy metals, except Hg. The study could be supplemented by the data on the same element content also in the leaves themselves, but it is just a suggestion for further.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research on vegetation and environmental change has always been a hot spot. This study has carried out a detailed study on the ability of vegetation to adsorb particulate matter under different pollution levels, analyzed the leaf structure of vegetation under different pollution levels, explained the reasons for the differences in the adsorption capacity of different plants, and the experimental design is also very reasonable; The research results provide a good support for vegetation to purify the atmospheric environment and use biological measures to control environmental pollution. The research is also suitable for publication in this journal, meeting the requirements of the journal. However, there are also the following minor problems that need to be modified:
(1) In the article, the author uses two writing forms of references, some of which are superscripts, and some of which are in the form of author plus year, which is wrong, such as 62 lines, 64 lines, 72 lines, etc; It should be written according to the requirements of the journal.
(2) In section 2.2, it is necessary to clarify why the three broad-leaved trees and three coniferous trees in the study were selected because the six trees are the largest in number and area, or what are the typical types and representativeness of the tree species?
(3) For the tree species in Table 1, the abbreviations are written directly. The abbreviations need to be written in advance in the following description in 2.2, instead of appearing directly in the table;
(4) There is no need to write the note of line 113. It has been written in 2.1, and it does not need to be repeated;
(5) Section 2.4, just write the method here, and put Figure 3 and Figure 4 in the result section;
(6) The number of references in the article is too large, and there are centralized citations. Please delete appropriately.
(7) Significant P needs to be tilted.
(8) Add some numbers to the summary as appropriate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, now the title of the paper is better and also the abstract is better. You should move a link indicated in line 51 to the list of references. You should indicate which dollars (Canadian or U.S.?) refers to economic estimation in line 56. I think it is useless to indicate element names in Latin in lines 176-177. The text in figures (2, 3, 4) is too small.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Authors, now the title of the paper is better and also the abstract is better.
Response: Many thanks for your recognition for our work and the following helpful suggestions.
You should move a link indicated in line 51 to the list of references.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised it accordingly. [Ln51]
You should indicate which dollars (Canadian or U.S.?) refers to economic estimation in line 56.
Response: Thank you for your comment. It is dollars ($), we have revised it accordingly. [Ln55]
I think it is useless to indicate element names in Latin in lines 176-177.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have deleted Latin in line 175.
The text in figures (2, 3, 4) is too small.
Response: Thank you for your comment. we have resized the figures (2,3,4).
Reviewer 3 Report
The author is very careful in revising, and has already revised everything he put forward last time. It is acceptable to publish.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
