Assessments of Heavy Metals Accumulation, Bioavailability, Mobility, and Toxicity in Serpentine Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting work has been done and valuable results have been obtained which can be accepted with some minor modifications. The introduction is well written and the necessity of the research is also explained correctly. In my opinion, it can be accepted by making the following corrections:

-          Although the English level of MS is relatively well written, however, it needs to be completely reviewed and the spelling and grammatical errors corrected.

-          The reference related to the measurement method to determine the content of heavy metals in the soil should be added.

-          It is necessary to bold the numbers and letters placed in the figures so that they can be easily understood.

 

-          The conclusion should express the innovation of the work.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. The authors greatly appreciate it. All the comments were addressed. We hope to publish with the Sustainability. Point-by-point responses by the author are presented in the pdf file. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Well-written paper, results are clearly presented.Paper can be accepted with following minor comments. Author should specify the model and company name of ICP-OES in material method section of manuscript. Author should reduce the space between line no. 212-217 in manuscript. Author should clarify the instrument name for Quality Control and Assurance of soil in material method section of manuscript. Figure and Table bullet should be in bold. Resolution is poor. Author should provide good quality of Figure in manuscript. Reference of manuscript should be in same format.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions that were given. The authors are truly grateful. I have already implemented and taken care of the corrections. The authors hope you can consider the manuscript for publication. The detailed point-by-point response is in the pdf attachment given.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The reviewed manuscript is dealing with assessments of heavy metals accumulation, bioavailability, mobility, and toxicity in serpentinite soils. Selective sequential extraction and leaching procedures were used to assess heavy metals accumulation on serpentinite’s topsoil derived from few states in Peninsular Malaysia. The manuscript is well presented. I think that the topic is interesting, the study has been conducted solidly in terms of the methodology used, while the references are relevant, providing a sufficient background. For these reasons, I consider that this manuscript deserves publication after the implication of some minor revisions, the suggestions of which I will provide below:

 

1. As the manuscript related to rock type, more information about the local geology should be added.

 

2. Figures; Please enhance the quality of the presented figures in the manuscript, considering to increase the font of X and Y axes.

 

3. Lines 141; Please provide information about the model of the used ICP-OES.

 

4. References style in the main text and references list should be revised following the journal instructions.

 

5. Supplementary materials; It would be easier for the readers if the authors present important information only in one word file as supplementary materials. Please be sure to mention the presented supporting information in the main text as Table S1, Table S2, ……, Figure S1.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions that were given. The authors are truly grateful. I have already implemented and taken care of the corrections. The authors hope you can consider the manuscript for publication. The detailed point-by-point response is in the pdf attachment given.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I have read the whole article which is titled "Assessments of heavy metals accumulation, bioavailability, 2 mobility, and toxicity in serpentinite soils". I showed my new suggestions on the draft manuscript, and the authors could pay attention to them. Your manuscript brings some inspiring insights into the contribution of heavy metals accumulation, bioavailability, mobility, and toxicity in serpentinite soils. However, there are some issues that need to be quickly addressed:

 

Abstract

Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part.

Line 2. Change serpantinite with serpantine soil

Line 11. Delete “metals”, add “metal”

Line 15. a few states

Line 17. The Geo-accumulation Index you need to use its regular name, not abbreviation.

Line 19. to be bound

Line 21. poorly

 

Introduction

the inrtroduction section of this manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a
well-structured manner. But the author need to refer how important serpantine soils and some applications should be added. Especially some important sentences need to be added to recent references.

Line 33. and ability

Line 41. Delete “towards” add “to”

Line 48. is no doubt that

Line 50. Delete “towards” add “into”

Line 68. Delete “with”

 

Material and Method

The manuscript scientifically sounds good and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. But, there are also some grammatical problems that must be checked.

 

Line 111. of deionized water.

Line 224. Were divided

 

Results

This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. But there is also some issue that needs to be cleared.

 

Lines 325-328. Need to add related references.

Line 350. moderate

Line 423. as the lowest toxicity

Line 442. is

Line 458. the serpentine soils

 

Discussion

The manuscript is clear, relevant, and discussed very well in this section. Still, there is also some issue that needs to be cleared.

 

Line 499. Delete “through” add “by”

Line 515. a metal sink.

Line 579. Delete “with” add “to”

 

Conclusion

The conclusions presented well with the evidence and argument however, authors should indicate which practice is better in serpentine fields and what they recommend to readers.

 

The figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show
the data? Without the figure 1 other figures and tables are suitable and clear to understand whole study, but the figure 1. is not clear. So, it needs to be redone.

 

Overall, Great work presenting this information in a succinct and very approachable manner. 

I think your article is suitable for publication after a minor editing of English language and style required.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for your time and efforts in revising the manuscript draft. The authors are very grateful for the constructive comments that enhance the quality of the manuscript. I've already taken care of the issues suggested for the manuscript. The point-by-point response is in the pdf attachment given. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The article "Assessments of heavy metals accumulation, bioavailability, mobility, and toxicity in serpentinite soils" was prepared carefully in terms of abstract, introduction and partly research methodology. On the other hand, the results of the research and the discussion, and partly the methodology of sampling, should be thoroughly changed. Too few samples were selected for the study to be able to statistically develop them with the smallest possible error. Why? In addition, the research results have not been sufficiently developed and discussed. The discussion is mixed up with the results. In this form, the article cannot be published, because it would be worth starting with increasing the number of research samples. For this purpose, one should go to the field for new research materials. After making changes, the article will be a valuable research material.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions that were given. The authors are truly grateful. I have already implemented and taken care of the corrections. The authors hope you can consider the manuscript for publication. The detailed point-by-point response is in the pdf attachment given.  

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors of the article introduced partial changes. They explained the research methodology. There is still no clear separation between research results and discussion. The results should be commented on, and the discussion should refer to the results of other authors.

Author Response

The authors of the article introduced partial changes. They explained the research methodology. There is still no clear separation between research results and discussion. The results should be commented on, and the discussion should refer to the results of other authors.

Thank you so much for your suggestion for the improvement of the manuscript. The authors decided to alter some arrangements based on the comments by combining the results and discussions. The results were presented first, followed by the discussion. As suggested, the authors implemented the discussion by comparing the results with previous literature. 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

After the last corrections, the article can be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your support of our manuscript. Many thanks from all the authors.