Assessment of the Effects of Heavy Metals in Soils after Removal by Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron with Three Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

With the rapid improvement of nanotechnology, more and more nanomaterials were widely used in our daily life, agricultural production and environment. However, MS has many spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be fully edited by a skilled expert in native English. After complete editing of MS, it can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment on the effect of heavy metals in soils after removing by Nanoscale zero-valent with three methods” (No. sustainability-1535733). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript_revised version).docx. The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript_revised version with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Reviewer 1#’s comments:

• With the rapid improvement of nanotechnology, more and more nanomaterials were widely used in our daily life, agricultural production and environment. However, MS has many spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be fully edited by a skilled expert in native English. After complete editing of MS, it can be accepted.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

Responses to the Reviewer 2#’s comments:

• The title is not clear and abstract needs to be rewritten. The title seems inappropriate as no ecological risk is discussed in the article. The abstract is vague with many spelling mistakes.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the title and abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1; Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Introduction is too short; the problem is not explained well.

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the introduction in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1-2, Line 34-49)

• The materials and methods section needs to be written precisely. This section is very poorly written. This section appears to be the laboratory manual of some lab experiment rather than the methodology of the research article.

Thanks for your comments. We revised the materials and methods section in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2-5, Line 72-159)

• The results of the study have not been discussed properly. Discussion part must be strengthened with the support of quality citations

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the results of the study in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 195)

• The language is poor.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

• You have carried out the simulation studies with IVG test. Why the study has not been carried on test organism?

Response: Thanks for your comments. Simulation study can express experimental process well, so in this study, simulation study was used instead of experimental process.

• The article must be re-written with due care. The authors must proof read the article before submitting it in the journal. There are many silly mistakes in entire text which shows article has not been read well before submission.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revised the MS in the latest version of the manuscript.

Specific comments

• Title is unrefined and incomplete. Zero valent??? No metal mentioned No ecological risks throughout the length of paper are discussed... Inappropriate titl

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the title in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1)

• The abstract is not clear. It must be rewritten

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Remove inverted commas and mention three main types of wastes instead of three wastes.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• Less energy environmentally disturbing??? Kindly use technical term like eco-friendly remediation technology.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• what is home and abroad?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 65)

• As represented as ZVI in previous page. Use it in rest of the paper length

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it through the manuscript.

• write 'a' and 'b' in superscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 78)

• what is 2ds-1. It should be written in fullform when it first appears in the text

Response: Thanks for your comments. It was 2ds^-1, we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 86)

• write it concisely

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 74)

• These lines are not clear. It should be very clear what is S1, S2 and S3. Rewrite these lines

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 98)

• Leaching toxicity??? Do you mean leachate toxicity?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 104)

• The equation should be written in proper equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 114)

• In this section, the authors have stated two stages: Stomach stage Intestine stage was this experiment conducted on any animal? Again readers cant get insight to it. Must be explained properly

Response: Thanks for your comments. This is a simulation study, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• Whose stomach it enters??? The sentence is very poorly written. Humans do not consume soil directly. The first sentence is also started with Soil is material basis for human survival. Ambiguous!!

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 119-120)

• Mainly

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 133)

• 37°C in

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• water bath. Pour

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• Rpm

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 139)

• collect the filtrate in ???? The sentence is incomplete.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 140)

• Syringe

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 144)

• write the equation proper form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 149)

• IV in subscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 150)

• write in equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 189)

• Do nZVI or ZVI represent Nano zero valent iron. Recheck line no.41

Response: Thanks for your comments. It is the same. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 202)

• There is overlapping of axis and axis title . What does red colour line represent?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• What does the red dotted line indicate. It should be explained

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We explained it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• Polluting heavy metals is a wrong representation.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 7, Line 238)

• Do soil samples possess small intestines??? Wrongly written

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 276)

• The heading is incomplete

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We added it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• elaborate how

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• What is its reason?? Support it with valid citation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• applied to

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 304)

Responses to the Reviewer 3#’s comments:

• In this manuscript, the leaching content, the bioavailability and the phyto-availability of heavy metals in the soil after nano-zero-valent iron stabilized were investigated by authors. The scientific problem of this study is clear, the experimental methods and data are reliable, and the text is well arranged. However, there are some details that need to be revised and perfected. So, I recommend to you that this manuscript can be accepted after minor modification. The following are some suggestions for authors:

Response: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

• In the line 15, the first occurrence of abbreviation format for TCLP, IVG and DGT should refer to “Nanoscale zero-valent (nZVI)” in the line 14.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 16)

• In the line 16 and 17, the word “rion” should be changed to “iron”.

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 18-19)

• The background of soil samples should be introduced, such as sampling site, soil type, parent material type and contamination status, etc.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• The author should explain why only the Nanoscale zero-valent iron with the dose of 0.5 g·L-10g·L-1 were considered in this study.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The dose of 0.5 g·L^-1 and 1.0g·L^-1  are common concentrations for removing heavy metals, so this concentration was selected in this study. (Page 1, Line 35-57)

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title is not clear and abstract needs to be rewritten. The title seems inappropriate as no ecological risk is discussed in the article. The abstract is vague with many spelling mistakes.
2. Introduction is too short; the problem is not explained well.
3. The materials and methods section needs to be written precisely. This section is very poorly written. This section appears to be the laboratory manual of some lab experiment rather than the methodology of the research article.
4. The results of the study have not been discussed properly. Discussion part must be strengthened with the support of quality citations
5. The language is poor.
6. You have carried out the simulation studies with IVG test. Why the study has not been carried on test organism?

The applicability of this article is very less as no test species are involved in the study, on which the performance of three methods could have been evaluated. Ecological risks mentioned in the title but no ecological risk is mentioned and discussed in the text. It is just a preliminary study to have an idea of three methods for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. Physicochemical characteristics of soil of study area is not correlated with the bioavailability and uptake of heavy metals.

The article must be re-written with due care. The authors must proof read the article before submitting it in the journal. There are many silly mistakes in entire text which shows article has not been read well before submission.

The comments are given in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment on the effect of heavy metals in soils after removing by Nanoscale zero-valent with three methods” (No. sustainability-1535733). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript_revised version).docx. The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript_revised version with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Reviewer 1#’s comments:

• With the rapid improvement of nanotechnology, more and more nanomaterials were widely used in our daily life, agricultural production and environment. However, MS has many spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be fully edited by a skilled expert in native English. After complete editing of MS, it can be accepted.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

Responses to the Reviewer 2#’s comments:

• The title is not clear and abstract needs to be rewritten. The title seems inappropriate as no ecological risk is discussed in the article. The abstract is vague with many spelling mistakes.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the title and abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1; Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Introduction is too short; the problem is not explained well.

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the introduction in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1-2, Line 34-49)

• The materials and methods section needs to be written precisely. This section is very poorly written. This section appears to be the laboratory manual of some lab experiment rather than the methodology of the research article.

Thanks for your comments. We revised the materials and methods section in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2-5, Line 72-159)

• The results of the study have not been discussed properly. Discussion part must be strengthened with the support of quality citations

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the results of the study in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 195)

• The language is poor.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

• You have carried out the simulation studies with IVG test. Why the study has not been carried on test organism?

Response: Thanks for your comments. Simulation study can express experimental process well, so in this study, simulation study was used instead of experimental process.

• The article must be re-written with due care. The authors must proof read the article before submitting it in the journal. There are many silly mistakes in entire text which shows article has not been read well before submission.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revised the MS in the latest version of the manuscript.

Specific comments

• Title is unrefined and incomplete. Zero valent??? No metal mentioned No ecological risks throughout the length of paper are discussed... Inappropriate titl

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the title in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1)

• The abstract is not clear. It must be rewritten

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Remove inverted commas and mention three main types of wastes instead of three wastes.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• Less energy environmentally disturbing??? Kindly use technical term like eco-friendly remediation technology.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• what is home and abroad?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 65)

• As represented as ZVI in previous page. Use it in rest of the paper length

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it through the manuscript.

• write 'a' and 'b' in superscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 78)

• what is 2ds-1. It should be written in fullform when it first appears in the text

Response: Thanks for your comments. It was 2ds^-1, we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 86)

• write it concisely

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 74)

• These lines are not clear. It should be very clear what is S1, S2 and S3. Rewrite these lines

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 98)

• Leaching toxicity??? Do you mean leachate toxicity?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 104)

• The equation should be written in proper equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 114)

• In this section, the authors have stated two stages: Stomach stage Intestine stage was this experiment conducted on any animal? Again readers cant get insight to it. Must be explained properly

Response: Thanks for your comments. This is a simulation study, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• Whose stomach it enters??? The sentence is very poorly written. Humans do not consume soil directly. The first sentence is also started with Soil is material basis for human survival. Ambiguous!!

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 119-120)

• Mainly

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 133)

• 37°C in

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• water bath. Pour

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• Rpm

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 139)

• collect the filtrate in ???? The sentence is incomplete.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 140)

• Syringe

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 144)

• write the equation proper form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 149)

• IV in subscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 150)

• write in equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 189)

• Do nZVI or ZVI represent Nano zero valent iron. Recheck line no.41

Response: Thanks for your comments. It is the same. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 202)

• There is overlapping of axis and axis title . What does red colour line represent?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• What does the red dotted line indicate. It should be explained

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We explained it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• Polluting heavy metals is a wrong representation.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 7, Line 238)

• Do soil samples possess small intestines??? Wrongly written

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 276)

• The heading is incomplete

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We added it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• elaborate how

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• What is its reason?? Support it with valid citation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• applied to

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 304)

Responses to the Reviewer 3#’s comments:

• In this manuscript, the leaching content, the bioavailability and the phyto-availability of heavy metals in the soil after nano-zero-valent iron stabilized were investigated by authors. The scientific problem of this study is clear, the experimental methods and data are reliable, and the text is well arranged. However, there are some details that need to be revised and perfected. So, I recommend to you that this manuscript can be accepted after minor modification. The following are some suggestions for authors:

Response: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

• In the line 15, the first occurrence of abbreviation format for TCLP, IVG and DGT should refer to “Nanoscale zero-valent (nZVI)” in the line 14.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 16)

• In the line 16 and 17, the word “rion” should be changed to “iron”.

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 18-19)

• The background of soil samples should be introduced, such as sampling site, soil type, parent material type and contamination status, etc.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• The author should explain why only the Nanoscale zero-valent iron with the dose of 0.5 g·L-10g·L-1 were considered in this study.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The dose of 0.5 g·L^-1 and 1.0g·L^-1  are common concentrations for removing heavy metals, so this concentration was selected in this study. (Page 1, Line 35-57)

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the leaching content, the bioavailability and the phyto-availability of heavy metals in the soil after nano-zero-valent iron stabilized were investigated by authors. The scientific problem of this study is clear, the experimental methods and data are reliable, and the text is well arranged. However, there are some details that need to be revised and perfected. So, I recommend to you that this manuscript can be accepted after minor modification. The following are some suggestions for authors:

1. In the line 15, the first occurrence of abbreviation format for TCLP, IVG and DGT should refer to “Nanoscale zero-valent (nZVI)” in the line 14.
2. In the line 16 and 17, the word “rion” should be changed to “iron”.
3. The background of soil samples should be introduced, such as sampling site, soil type, parent material type and contamination status, etc.
4. The author should explain why only the Nanoscale zero-valent iron with the dose of 0.5 g·L^-10g·L^-1 were considered in this study.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment on the effect of heavy metals in soils after removing by Nanoscale zero-valent with three methods” (No. sustainability-1535733). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript_revised version).docx. The Manuscript_Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript_revised version with cleaned from all the marks.

Responses to the Reviewer 1#’s comments:

• With the rapid improvement of nanotechnology, more and more nanomaterials were widely used in our daily life, agricultural production and environment. However, MS has many spelling and grammatical flaws that need to be fully edited by a skilled expert in native English. After complete editing of MS, it can be accepted.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

Responses to the Reviewer 2#’s comments:

• The title is not clear and abstract needs to be rewritten. The title seems inappropriate as no ecological risk is discussed in the article. The abstract is vague with many spelling mistakes.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the title and abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1; Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Introduction is too short; the problem is not explained well.

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the introduction in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1-2, Line 34-49)

• The materials and methods section needs to be written precisely. This section is very poorly written. This section appears to be the laboratory manual of some lab experiment rather than the methodology of the research article.

Thanks for your comments. We revised the materials and methods section in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2-5, Line 72-159)

• The results of the study have not been discussed properly. Discussion part must be strengthened with the support of quality citations

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised the results of the study in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 195)

• The language is poor.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

• You have carried out the simulation studies with IVG test. Why the study has not been carried on test organism?

Response: Thanks for your comments. Simulation study can express experimental process well, so in this study, simulation study was used instead of experimental process.

• The article must be re-written with due care. The authors must proof read the article before submitting it in the journal. There are many silly mistakes in entire text which shows article has not been read well before submission.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revised the MS in the latest version of the manuscript.

Specific comments

• Title is unrefined and incomplete. Zero valent??? No metal mentioned No ecological risks throughout the length of paper are discussed... Inappropriate titl

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the title in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1)

• The abstract is not clear. It must be rewritten

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 14-26)

• Remove inverted commas and mention three main types of wastes instead of three wastes.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• Less energy environmentally disturbing??? Kindly use technical term like eco-friendly remediation technology.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 50)

• what is home and abroad?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 65)

• As represented as ZVI in previous page. Use it in rest of the paper length

Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised it through the manuscript.

• write 'a' and 'b' in superscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 78)

• what is 2ds-1. It should be written in fullform when it first appears in the text

Response: Thanks for your comments. It was 2ds^-1, we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 86)

• write it concisely

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 74)

• These lines are not clear. It should be very clear what is S1, S2 and S3. Rewrite these lines

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 98)

• Leaching toxicity??? Do you mean leachate toxicity?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 104)

• The equation should be written in proper equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 114)

• In this section, the authors have stated two stages: Stomach stage Intestine stage was this experiment conducted on any animal? Again readers cant get insight to it. Must be explained properly

Response: Thanks for your comments. This is a simulation study, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• Whose stomach it enters??? The sentence is very poorly written. Humans do not consume soil directly. The first sentence is also started with Soil is material basis for human survival. Ambiguous!!

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 119-120)

• Mainly

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 133)

• 37°C in

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• water bath. Pour

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 137)

• Rpm

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 139)

• collect the filtrate in ???? The sentence is incomplete.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 140)

• Syringe

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 144)

• write the equation proper form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 149)

• IV in subscript

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 150)

• write in equation form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 189)

• Do nZVI or ZVI represent Nano zero valent iron. Recheck line no.41

Response: Thanks for your comments. It is the same. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 202)

• There is overlapping of axis and axis title . What does red colour line represent?

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• What does the red dotted line indicate. It should be explained

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We explained it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• Polluting heavy metals is a wrong representation.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 7, Line 238)

• Do soil samples possess small intestines??? Wrongly written

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 276)

• The heading is incomplete

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We added it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• elaborate how

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• What is its reason?? Support it with valid citation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript.

• applied to

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 9, Line 304)

Responses to the Reviewer 3#’s comments:

• In this manuscript, the leaching content, the bioavailability and the phyto-availability of heavy metals in the soil after nano-zero-valent iron stabilized were investigated by authors. The scientific problem of this study is clear, the experimental methods and data are reliable, and the text is well arranged. However, there are some details that need to be revised and perfected. So, I recommend to you that this manuscript can be accepted after minor modification. The following are some suggestions for authors:

Response: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

• In the line 15, the first occurrence of abbreviation format for TCLP, IVG and DGT should refer to “Nanoscale zero-valent (nZVI)” in the line 14.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 16)

• In the line 16 and 17, the word “rion” should be changed to “iron”.

Response: Thanks you for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 18-19)

• The background of soil samples should be introduced, such as sampling site, soil type, parent material type and contamination status, etc.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 220)

• The author should explain why only the Nanoscale zero-valent iron with the dose of 0.5 g·L-10g·L-1 were considered in this study.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The dose of 0.5 g·L^-1 and 1.0g·L^-1  are common concentrations for removing heavy metals, so this concentration was selected in this study. (Page 1, Line 35-57)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the corrections, I think it can be accepted.

Author Response

Response: Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I have gone through your manuscript again. Although the manuscript looks little better than the earlier version, but it still needs some revisions to make it a good publication.

Methodology needs more improvement and clarity.

I have given my comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Assessment on the effect of heavy metals in soils after removing by Nanoscale zero-valent with three methods” (No. sustainability-1535733). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the Reviewer 1#’s comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors. After the corrections, I think it can be accepted.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments.

Responses to the Reviewer 2#’s comments:

1. Dear Authors, I have gone through your manuscript again. Although the manuscript looks little better than the earlier version, but it still needs some revisions to make it a good publication. Methodology needs more improvement and clarity. I have given my comments in the attached pdf.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. We revised language and spelling in the current manuscript. Besides, our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of sustainability.

2. Can't we write Nanoscale zero-valent iron??

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the title and abstract in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 1)

3. Reference

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the reference in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 34, 36)

4. This section should also be written as the previous section (2.2).For example, Certain mass of nZVI particles was weighed and dissolved in deionized water for 3 minutes.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 89-93)

5. In my last review also, I had suggested to make this more clear. Out of no where, stomach, mouth and intestines are presented without any background. This should be corrected

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 110-113)

6. Again avoiding writing as if you are preparing laboratory manual. One gram of soil sample was weighed and passed through...

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised this part in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 125-135)

7. write in better way

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 6, Line 208-216)

8. significantly improved??At what level of significance. Which statistical test has been used to check significance?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We revised it throughout in the latest version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx