Investigating the Interactive Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Different Chelating Agents (EDTA and DTPA) with Different Plant Species on Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil
, Khaled D. Alotaibi 1, Khalid F. Almutairi 2, Fahad N. Albarakah 1, Fahad Alotaibi 1 and Ibrahim A. Ahmed 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 29 What does BCF stand for? Please use full name the first time you mention it.
Introduction:
The content is good, but the organization, structure, and the form of citations are in a mess. I would say rewrite the introduction, make it clear and straightforward.
Line 99-101 Give a geographic coordinate of the field you sampled.
Line 101Please give a range of the HM concentration
Line 102 Can you provide the specific concentration instead of “known concentration”?
Line 105-107 How long does it take to transport the collected sample from field?
Line 108-109 How much HMs salts were added into the soil? Please be specific
Line 123 How do you control the same amount of use of AMF. Please explain
Line 128 How did you get “spiked HMs soil”? Please explain the process.
Line 145-159 Please correct the form of citation and read carefully about author guidelines
Line 164 The format of the formula
Table 1. the wrong format.
Did you do the statistical analysis?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is OK, but the format of the paper need to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the interactive effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and chelating agents (EDTA and DTPA) on the phytoremediation of heavy metals using corn (Zea mays) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). The research shows that these fungi and chemicals can enhance plant growth and increase heavy metal uptake, though the effects varied depending on the type of plant and the specific treatment. EDTA, in particular, proved to be more effective in promoting metal uptake. The study suggests that a combination of AMF and chelating agents may provide a promising strategy for soil remediation. Additionally, ensuring that all sections of the manuscript are closely aligned with the research objectives would strengthen the overall coherence and focus of the paper. However, several aspects need improvement before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance:
- Novelty and Research Gaps: The manuscript does not clearly highlight the novelty of the research. The authors should explicitly identify the gaps in existing literature that their study addresses and how their findings contribute to advancing the field of phytoremediation.
- Materials and Methods: This section requires more details. The authors should provide specific information on the protocols and instruments used in the experiments to allow reproducibility of the study.
- Metal Selection: The rationale behind selecting only certain heavy metals for the study (e.g., Cd, Ni, Pb, Zn, etc.) is unclear. The authors should explain why these particular metals were chosen and their relevance to the study.
- Analytical Accuracy: The manuscript lacks a reference to the use of certified reference materials (CRM) for ensuring the accuracy of heavy metal analysis. The authors should clarify why a CRM was not used and consider including one to validate the analytical results.
- Pollution Load Index (PLI) and Enrichment Factor (EF): While the PLI and EF are introduced in the methodology, there is no thorough analysis of the results. The article merely mentions their role in assessing pollution levels without providing specific PLI values or an interpretation of those values. A detailed analysis and discussion of the PLI and EF results would significantly enhance the study’s contribution to understanding the severity of heavy metal contamination.
- Comparison with Existing Literature: There is minimal comparison of the study’s findings with those reported in related literature. A stronger discussion contrasting the current results with previous studies would improve the manuscript’s depth and contextualization.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSubmission ID: sustainability-3205284
Title of the manuscript: " Investigating the Interactive Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Different Chelating Agents (EDTA and DTPA) with Different Plant Species on Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil".
This study evaluated the impact of AMF and chelators on the growth of corn (Zea mays L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and overall soil health. The subject is very interesting. Still, there are a lot of questions the authors need to answer and correct. Based on these points, I suggest reconsidering this manuscript after major revision.
Specific comments
L21-36: The authors should present the key data of the measured indicators, and p- values. This is important to provide concise results.
L39-40: Rearrange alphabetically.
L43-96: The introduction did not have a clear structure so I could not focus on the aim, a wide range of areas are covered, sometimes quite rapidly, others in more detail. As well as the transition between paragraphs in the introduction needs more improvement.
L74-76: The role of AMF in alleviating metal stress should be discussed in the light of new knowledge. The references need to be updated to strengthen the manuscript. These papers will help you https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134044
L73: Follow the journal notation in citing references and throughout the manuscript.
L91-96: Try to bring the novelty of this study, you may refer some lack in the previous study regarding some aspects.
L109-110: Subscript.
L128: Variety???
L130: Which species of AMF? Please clarify?
L13-132: Please give some details about the mycorrhizal inoculum such as How many grams? How many spores per gram? See this paper https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12061123
L134: Scientific names should be italic.
L145-159: Write as a paragraph not as points.
Please add a subsection which will describe the methods of statistical analysis in this manuscript.
Why did not the authors determine mycorrhizal colonization in the plant’s roots?????
L187-195: I suggest moving this section which describes soil chemical and physical properties to M&M section.
Figure 1: How did the authors separate the means? Please add the letters above the columns to show the degree of significance. The same for all figures.
Figure 1: Please number the subfigure (A &B). As well as add the explanation for subfigures (A-B) in the figure caption. The same for all figures.
Table 3: Please define the full names of HM such as Cd, Co, ….etc. in the table caption. The same for tables 4,5, and 6. As well as you can combine the value±SE then the letter, for example 0.96±0.005d
The discussion is very weak, I suggest that the authors could sperate the discussion in a sperate section.
L410-450: The conclusions are too long and contain unnecessary information. It seems that the authors have rewritten their results. The authors should make the conclusions briefer and include several points such as: novelty-the importance of this study for sustainable agriculture- prospects.
L449-450: The recommendations for future research are missing.
Kind Regards.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally, one sentence cannot form a paragraph.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is good and can be improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful and much appreciated review. We would like to inform you that we have made grammatical, and formatting improvements that are highlighted.
Best regards,
Saud S. Aloud
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing the manuscript and verifying the authors' revisions, I am pleased to accept the final version of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful and much appreciated review. We would like to inform you that we have made grammatical, and formatting improvements that are highlighted.
Best regards,
Saud S. Aloud
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is the second time I have evaluated this manuscript. The authors addressed all my comments, and the manuscript has been noticeably improved. Many thanks for their contribution.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is understandable and correct. Only minor editorial and stylistic corrections are required.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful and much appreciated review. We would like to inform you that we have made grammatical, and formatting improvements that are highlighted.
Best regards,
Saud S. Aloud
