Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study's theme is very interesting, but there are some aspects that need to be considered for improvement.

1. The figures referenced in the main text all appear as 'Error! Reference source not found.' Please carefully check and correct these.

2. Authors need to clearly state the contribution of the study.

3. Please standardize the format, for example, 'FW Soil' in Table 4 is not consistent with other rows.

4. Enhance the depth of data analysis, particularly in interpreting the significance of observed differences between greywater and freshwater irrigation. This may involve more sophisticated statistical analyses or a more detailed discussion of the results. Additionally, compare the results with existing literature more thoroughly to contextualize the findings within the broader field of sustainable irrigation.

5. Discuss the long-term implications of using greywater for irrigation, considering potential cumulative effects on soil quality and plant health. Elaborate on the broader environmental and economic impacts of using greywater for irrigation, including potential benefits and drawbacks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript (2788495) submitted to the sustainability, MDPI. We appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers and have addressed the comments in the section below. We hope this revised manuscript now matches your expectation and looking forward to a positive outcome. Thank you.

Regards,

Dr Hamish Mackey, and Prof. Gordon McKay

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the article “Evaluation of greywater as a sustainable source of irrigation for ornamental green wall crops – A plant and soil study using Ruellia tuberosa”. The topic is interesting and the research was developed with a well-conducted and methodologically structured scientific approach; the bibliography is extensive. Possible future research developments and also possible practical applications could be interesting; it would also be interesting to expand the research and apply the proposed method to other types of plants. Note the presence of numerous typos in the text with the words "Error! Reference source

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript (2788495) submitted to the sustainability, MDPI. We appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers and have addressed the comments in the section below. We hope this revised manuscript now matches your expectation and looking forward to a positive outcome. Thank you.

Regards,

Dr Hamish Mackey, and Prof. Gordon McKay

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to bring the list of references in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

It is advisable to provide a visualization of the plant being studied.

In the “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion” sections, it is necessary to edit the references to the literary source.

It is necessary to edit the entire text of the manuscript.

The intensity of oxidative stress can be easily detected by the coloring of the plant root for the ROS marker.

The toxic effect of Al in the root can be easily detected indirectly by staining the root cap cells for starch.

How do the authors propose to control the composition of incoming wastewater? After all, there must be optimal criteria, otherwise the decrease in chlorophyll content and increased chlorosis of leaves may increase.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the manuscript (2788495) submitted to the sustainability, MDPI. We appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers and have addressed the comments in the section below. We hope this revised manuscript now matches your expectation and looking forward to a positive outcome. Thank you.

Regards,

Dr Hamish Mackey, and Prof. Gordon McKay

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf