Review on Phytoremediation Potential of Floating Aquatic Plants for Heavy Metals: A Promising Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Keywords.
Keywords are not appropriate??? Keywords should be words not contained in the title or in the abstract. Their usefulness is to make easier the searching of the article using the common scientific search engines. Since several keywords are already present in the title, and/or repeated several times in the abstract, I strongly advise the authors to replace some of them and add more.
Introduction.
The authors say “In the United Kingdom, one of the primary stressors on water quality is an excessive nutrient released from a diffuse source of water pollution” add the reference.
Figure 1 demonstrates the increasing trend for the use of aquatic plants inphytoremediation based on the data extracted from Scopus by using the keywords of phytoremediation and aquatic plants. ¿Are the search data aggregated? Or did you search separately? ¿ How to select only that temporary search period?
It is not clear if it is a literature review or if it is research work, they mention a lot that they only do a review. review of what?
The authors mention the different bioremediation and phytoremediation techniques. as well as the mechanisms for Phytoremediation Mechanisms for the Elimination of Contaminants Present in the Aquatic Environment, However, it makes no sense since it is only a technical mention, but what is the real contribution?
They talk about the factors that affect or help in the elimination of heavy menatles with aquatic plants, but I insist this review seems more like a theoretical framework, not a scientific article.
Results and Discussion
The conclusions have interesting data such as the dependence on temperature and pH, however the review lacks a solid methodology and a true discussion that allows the reader to be of help in future works.
Authors should reformulate the manuscript so that it presents itself as a systematic review of the literature and robust methodology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The review article is well written and can be processed for submission in this journal, just following edits may be considered
1) Need graphical abstract and GA should be of better resolution.
2) Table 1: Add a bit of detail of, Percentage removal of Heavy metals in several parts of plants, types of heavy metals, experimental layout, plant species etc. Need comprehensive detail in table
3) Uniformity in scientific names must be insured
4) Figure 1 need to redraw with more detailed of several phytoremediation detail. Current figure is too simple. Moreover, figure resolution must be enough to read contents.
5) Add a section and clearly differentiate between phytoremediation techniques, and emphasized which strategy is better in which circumstances and why?
6) The formatting and language of the draft must be reviewed carefully once.
7) Objective should be elaborated in the introduction section.
8) References need to be rechecked and formatted as per the journal's guidelines.
9) Research highlights must be added, currently I did find in downloaded draft.
10) Most of the statements given in introduction section are justified by citing only one reference. I suggest adding 2-3 reference for justification
11) The review is too descriptive, it should be analytical as well as critical.
12) Please add few more recent, 2021 and 2022, reports related to the topic. What types of metals have been selected in this study as it looks too general, and I suggest specifying metals such as phytoremediation strategies to reduce Cd/Pb/Zn/ in aquatic plants.
13) Need systematic diagram to elaborate Phytoremediation Mechanisms using Accumulator Aquatic Plants
14) Table 3. Phytotoxicity of Heavy Metals in Plants is too simple and less informative, need to add more studies with more detailed information, like experimental layout, duration, plant response against heavy metal stress, phytoremediation strategy used by plants etc.
15) Please add table or systematic diagram to support of Phytoremediation Parameters and Kinetic Studies
16) Please add following recent references in your study
1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115801
2) https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00330-4
17) please add 3-4 more updated articles related to this study
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is interesting for all the scholars working on aquatic plants useful for phytoremediation. Manuscript was found informative but major revisions are required to make it interesting for readers and increase in coherence in flow:
1. Title is not appropriate and does not show that it is a review article. Please improve the title for example, it can be like "Phytoremediation potential of floating aquatic plants for heavy metals: A promising approach" .
2. Abstract: it is also very poorly written. It should be revised rigorously. Here, after problem statements and objective of this review article, it should be clearly mentioned that which themes this review article addressed. Currently, this abstract is very confusing and seems that it is an abstract of research article.
3.Why table 1 is given 2 times? first in 2.2 and then section 3. it should be given once.
4. First 3 sections are very boring. They all circulate around the different basic concepts of phytoremediation like Phytofilteration to phytovolatilization........They should be merged and rewrite to avoid repetition.
5. Similarly, many other statements and sentenced are repetitive that needs to be re-arranged and rewrite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I evaluated your revised version and am pleased to say that the authors addressed all my concerns and revised the manuscript thoroughly. I will recommend accepting this manuscript in its present form. Thanks
Reviewer 3 Report
Please improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript. Recommended to be read by english native speaker.
