Sustainable Management Approaches to Heavy Metal Pollution in Arid Soils Using Soil Amendments and Plant-Based Remediation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which contributed to a better quality manuscript. We addressed your comments point-by-point as shown below.

 

 

1. In the final paragraph of the Introduction, the authors are encouraged to more

explicitly highlight the assumption and novelty of the study.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to more explicitly highlight the core assumption that combined chemical and organic amendments can effectively remediate heavy metal-contaminated soils in arid environments and to emphasize the novelty of our integrated approach using both columns leaching and greenhouse experiments in a mining-impacted area of Saudi Arabia.

2. Material and methods part briefly mentions the greenhouse experiment but lacks basic environmental parameters. Please add information on average temperature, photoperiod, and humidity conditions to allow reproducibility.

Response: We appreciate your wise recommendation. To guarantee clarity and reproducibility of the experimental conditions, we have updated the Materials and Methods section to include important environmental parameters of the greenhouse experiment, such as the average temperature (28 °C), relative humidity (60%), and photoperiod (14 hours light/10 hours dark).

 

3. Since olive mill wastewater is a complex organic mixture, it would be helpful to provide more detailed compositional data (e.g., total organic carbon, polyphenol content, pH).

Response: We appreciate your helpful suggestions. Additional data for the olive mill wastewater (OMW), such as its pH, electrical conductivity (EC), polyphenol content, and nutrient concentrations, has been included to the text. To properly describe the amendment and improve reproducibility and comprehension of its function in the remediation process, these details have been added to the Materials and Methods in a table (table2) and described in a new section (section 3.2).

 

4. The manuscript reports that the combined treatments sometimes performed worse than single amendments. This observation is important but not fully discussed. Please offer a mechanistic explanation or cite relevant literature that discusses antagonistic effects or competition between amendments.

Response: We appreciate your insightful perspective. To discuss this issue in further detail, we have updated the conclusion section. In particular, we now provide a mechanistic explanation for why single amendment may outperform combined treatments. Possible antagonistic interactions or competition between amendments could be the cause of this. For instance, EDTA might improve metal mobility and solubility, but sulfur-induced acidification or organic compounds from OMW might also change metal speciation or microbial activity at the same time, decreasing uptake efficiency. Unpredictable results in terms of metal availability and plant absorption may result from such interactions.

 

 

5. The paper frequently attributes changes in metal mobility to shifts in pH and EC. While these are useful indicators, consider discussing other possible mechanisms, such as complexation behavior.

Response: We appreciate your thoughtful remark. We both agree that the intricacy of metal mobility in modified soils cannot be adequately captured by relying only on pH and EC. As a result, we have included further mechanistic explanations to the pertinent discussion sections, specifically focussing on complexation behaviour, chelation, ligand exchange, redox reactions, and competitive sorption dynamics.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is too long. It should be a single paragraph of no more than 200 words.

 

If you use the phrase 'According to [9, 10]', try to be more 'human', e.g. 'Many authors agree [...].' As previously confirmed by XXX and YYY [...].

Mining activities, for instance those at the Mahad Al-Dahab site in western Saudi Arabia, significantly increase the burden of HMs in surrounding soils [5, 11–13]. You cannot jump from one topic to another. Please add a paragraph explaining the global problem of HMs (mining, industry and urbanisation), and then introduce the site.

Please rewrite the sentence about the process of cleaning up metal-contaminated soils.

According to [11, 16] — as above.

Each technique, including excavation, will cost much more than techniques in situ.

A range of amendments have gained widespread recognition for their

effectiveness in phytoremediation. Where did phytoremediation come from? Please provide an introduction to the biological method.

EDTA is a well-recognised chelating agent that is highly

effective at binding with metals, which makes them easier to remove from soil [17]. Sure, but it's not phytoremediation, it's enhanced phytoremediation.

Sulfur amendments/olive mill wastewater (OMW): This paragraph must be rewritten as it is inconsistent. There are some individual thoughts put together, but there is no guiding principle.

In addition to monitoring pH and electrical conductivity (EC) at different depths, column leaching simulates natural infiltration and provides information on metal transport and the effectiveness of the amendments [19, 24, 25]. This is for the methods section.

It is a very cursory introduction to the work. There is no clearly identified knowledge gap that the authors hope to address. This section of the text needs to be significantly improved.

 

2.1 Please correct this section. It should start with the general location and climate characteristics, followed by the location of the sampling site and the amount of soil collected. Sometimes it is 100 kg and sometimes 200 kg. This is a significant difference.

2.2 Please rewrite this section, as 'according to [27] methods' provides no useful information, and nobody wants to check methods in other sources.

2.2.2. The treatments included sulphur at 1 and 2 t/ha, OMW at 5% and 10% (v/w), EDTA at 25 and 50 mmol/kg, and combinations of these at both rates. Please specify what was added where. For example, was it 1 t/ha + 5% + 25 mmol/kg, 1 t/5%/25, 1 t/5%/50, 1 t/10%/50, etc.?

Dried plant tissues were digested – how were they dried? Air or mechanical drying? What was the total weight of the dry and wet samples? How much soil was taken? Was it mixed beforehand? What were the conditions in the greenhouse?

Was the water distilled? Tap? How did you test the pH and EC levels in the columns?

2.4. This study followed the methods of references [26, 28–30]. It is sufficient to cite one reference. The same applies to TF (translocation factor).

Table 1

How did you calculate the mean pH?

Which part of the experiment are you describing here?

Fig. 4: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Ni, Pb, Cr, Zn and Cu separately.

Fig. 6: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Pb, Ni, Zn and Cu separately.

Table 3: Capital letter

5.2.1. You only tested sunflowers. At least, based on the method section…

(Regni et al., 2021).

 

The discussion is superficial, based on the principle of 'this is how it is with us; it turned out the same/didn't turn out the same'. There is no overarching theme to tie it all together. Currently, it is just a random collection of comments, sometimes supported by only one reference to literature.

While the conclusions are acceptable, the author did not refer to the initial reaction that he used to start the experiment, which could have affected the availability of metals.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which contributed to a better quality manuscript. We addressed your comments point-by-point as shown below.

 

The abstract is too long. It should be a single paragraph of no more than 200 words.

 Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The abstract has been revised to a single paragraph and reduced to about 200 words, in accordance with your suggestion. It now concisely summarizes the objectives, methods, key findings, and significance of the study while maintaining clarity and scientific accuracy.

If you use the phrase 'According to [9, 10]', try to be more 'human', e.g. 'Many authors agree [...].' As previously confirmed by XXX and YYY [...].

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have revised such phrases throughout the manuscript to adopt a more natural and human tone.

Mining activities, for instance those at the Mahad Al-Dahab site in western Saudi Arabia, significantly increase the burden of HMs in surrounding soils [5, 11–13]. You cannot jump from one topic to another. Please add a paragraph explaining the global problem of HMs (mining, industry and urbanisation), and then introduce the site.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised the introduction to improve the logical flow and coherence. A new paragraph has been added to first discuss the global problem of heavy metal contamination, highlighting major sources such as mining, industrial activity, and urbanization.

Please rewrite the sentence about the process of cleaning up metal-contaminated soils.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been revised for clarity and readability.

 

According to [11, 16] — as above.

Response: Thank you very much. This was corrected accordingly.

Each technique, including excavation, will cost much more than techniques in situ.

Response: We appreciate your valuable comment. We have added this sentence to the above authors [11, 16] as highlighted in the text.

A range of amendments have gained widespread recognition for their effectiveness in phytoremediation. Where did phytoremediation come from? Please provide an introduction to the biological method.

Response: We appreciate your contributions. As per your recommendation, we have included an introduction paragraph that provides a brief overview of the biological remediation approach.

 

EDTA is a well-recognised chelating agent that is highly effective at binding with metals, which makes them easier to remove from soil [17]. Sure, but it's not phytoremediation, it's enhanced phytoremediation.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We agree with your point and have revised the sentence accordingly.

Sulfur amendments/olive mill wastewater (OMW): This paragraph must be rewritten as it is inconsistent. There are some individual thoughts put together, but there is no guiding principle.

Response: Thank you for your helpful observation. We have rewritten the paragraph as highlighted in the text to improve its coherence and logical flow.

In addition to monitoring pH and electrical conductivity (EC) at different depths, column leaching simulates natural infiltration and provides information on metal transport and the effectiveness of the amendments [19, 24, 25]. This is for the methods section.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We acknowledge the comment and have deleted the sentence from the Introduction as it’s already mentioned in the Methods section, where it more appropriately describes the experimental approach.

It is a very cursory introduction to the work. There is no clearly identified knowledge gap that the authors hope to address. This section of the text needs to be significantly improved.

Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We have modified the Introduction section by rewritten it to enhance its organization, remove unnecessary information, and give the study a clearer perspective.

 

2.1 Please correct this section. It should start with the general location and climate characteristics, followed by the location of the sampling site and the amount of soil collected. Sometimes it is 100 kg and sometimes 200 kg. This is a significant difference.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. The section has been rewritten to start with a general description of the study area and climate, followed by sampling site. Regarding soil quantity, the actual collected amount is 200 kg.

 

2.2 Please rewrite this section, as 'according to [27] methods' provides no useful information, and nobody wants to check methods in other sources.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The sentence has been revised to clearly describe the analytical methods.

2.2.2. The treatments included sulphur at 1 and 2 t/ha, OMW at 5% and 10% (v/w), EDTA at 25 and 50 mmol/kg, and combinations of these at both rates. Please specify what was added where. For example, was it 1 t/ha + 5% + 25 mmol/kg, 1 t/5%/25, 1 t/5%/50, 1 t/10%/50, etc.?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have clarified the description of the treatments in the revised manuscript. the fourth treatment is now clearly defined as a single mixture treatment, where sulfur, olive mill wastewater (OMW), and EDTA were combined together at their higher rates (2 t ha⁻¹ sulfur, 10% OMW, and 50 mmol kg⁻¹ EDTA).

Dried plant tissues were digested – how were they dried? Air or mechanical drying? What was the total weight of the dry and wet samples? How much soil was taken? Was it mixed beforehand? What were the conditions in the greenhouse?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added detailed information on sample preparation and experimental conditions to improve clarity. Shoots and roots were dried in an electrical oven at 72 °C for 48 hours after six weeks of growth. Soil samples from each pot were thoroughly homogenized, air-dried, and sieved. Representative samples of approximately 200 g were taken for analysis further analysis as mentioned in section 2.2.2. The condition of the greenhouse also was added to the section; “The experiment was conducted in a controlled greenhouse conditions with an average temperature of 28 °C, a photoperiod of 14 hours of light and 10 hours of dark, and a relative humidity of 60%”.  

 

Was the water distilled? Tap? How did you test the pH and EC levels in the columns?

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We have revised the description of the column leaching experiment to clarify that the acrylic columns were marked with graduated centimeter scales (as shown in photo 1), to enable precise sampling for the targeted depths (0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–15 cm).  However, for the measurement of soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC), soil samples were mixed with distilled water at a 1:2.5 soil-to-water ratio to ensure accurate and consistent readings using calibrated instruments.

 

2.4. This study followed the methods of references [26, 28–30]. It is sufficient to cite one reference. The same applies to TF (translocation factor).

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have removed two references and remain a single citation.

Table 1

How did you calculate the mean pH?

Response: Thank you for the clarification. The mean soil pH reported in the table was determined from subsamples of the collected soil prior to the start of the experiment.

Which part of the experiment are you describing here?

Response: Thank you for this inquire. This description refers to the characterization of soil properties before the start of the experiment, providing baseline measurements of the soil’s physical and chemical status prior to treatment application.

Fig. 4: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Ni, Pb, Cr, Zn and Cu separately.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have revised Fig. 4 by separating the data for Cd, Mn, Ni, Pb, Cr, Zn, and Cu into individual subfigures.

Fig. 6: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Pb, Ni, Zn and Cu separately.

Response: Thank you for the helpful comment. We have revised Fig. 6 by presenting Cd, Mn, Pb, Ni, Zn, and Cu in separate subfigures.

Table 3: Capital letter

Response: Thank you for your important observation. This was edited.

5.2.1. You only tested sunflowers. At least, based on the method section…

(Regni et al., 2021).

Response: Thank you for this valuable notification. We have cited the reference using EndNote style.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study assessed the effectiveness of various soil amendments—sulfur, EDTA, olive mill wastewater (OMW), and their mixtures—in remediating soils contaminated with heavy metals. Laboratory and greenhouse experiments were conducted with sunflowers, analyzing metal mobility, leaching, and plant uptake. The paper deals with an important problem of heavy metal pollution; hence it is interesting. The paper is well planned, described and well discussed. The reviewer points out small comments that:

• Introduction: In the second paragraph, describe the methods used to purify heavy metals from soil or prevent their migration. Briefly present both classic and new solutions, outlining their advantages and disadvantages. Then move on to phytoremediation.
• Introduction: There is a lack of current literature data on what similar phytoremediation studies have been conducted previously. The authors did not demonstrate the novelty of their research. By presenting the existing literature, the authors can indicate the gaps in knowledge their research fills and could emphasize the novelty of their research.
• 2 Soil properties- Please provide more details regarding the determination of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, and Mn using ICP-OES. Were standard curves for these elements performed?
• Material and Methods: add the chemical reagents used, their purity and manufacturer
• What type of soil was it, and how much organic matter did it contain? Please provide additional information.
• Was the experiment shown in Figure 1 performed once or multiple times? Please add error bars to the graph. Consider using a scatter plot with smooth lines or a scatter plot with a trend line.
• Please justify in the main text why the authors chose sunflower for the study?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which contributed to a better quality manuscript. We addressed your comments point-by-point as shown below.

 

• Introduction: In the second paragraph, describe the methods used to purify heavy metals from soil or prevent their migration. Briefly present both classic and new solutions, outlining their advantages and disadvantages. Then move on to phytoremediation.

Response: I am grateful for your insightful recommendation. The second paragraph has been updated to provide a brief overview of both established and cutting-edge techniques for eliminating or immobilizing heavy metals from soils, along with a list of each method's benefits and drawbacks.

 

• Introduction: There is a lack of current literature data on what similar phytoremediation studies have been conducted previously. The authors did not demonstrate the novelty of their research. By presenting the existing literature, the authors can indicate the gaps in knowledge their research fills and could emphasize the novelty of their research.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer pointing this out. Recent research on phytoremediation has been incorporated into the Introduction section, which has been updated and appropriately referenced. These updates emphasize current gaps, set the scene for previous studies, and make it clear how our study fills in those gaps. The last paragraph of the Introduction makes clear the novelty of our work, which focusses on phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils at the Mahad Al-Dahab gold mining site under the soil and climate circumstances of Saudi Arabia.

 

• 2 Soil properties- Please provide more details regarding the determination of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, and Mn using ICP-OES. Were standard curves for these elements performed?

Response:  Detailed protocols for HM analysis have been included to Section 2.2.  While total concentrations were ascertained via digestion with hydrofluoric acid (HF), H₂SO₄, and HClO₄, and then ICP-OES analysis, DTPA-extractable metals were quantified using ICP-OES. The standard curves were performed of course. The ICP was calibrated using multi-element standards, and quality control included certified reference materials and blanks.

• Material and Methods: add the chemical reagents used, their purity and manufacturer

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion. The list of all chemical reagents used in the study were added to this section along with their purity levels and manufacturers.

• What type of soil was it, and how much organic matter did it contain? Please provide additional information.

Response:  Thank you for your insightful question: This is for the collected soil before experimentation as presented in table1.

• Was the experiment shown in Figure 1 performed once or multiple times? Please add error bars to the graph. Consider using a scatter plot with smooth lines or a scatter plot with a trend line.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The experiment shown in Figure 1 was performed once; however, the pour volumes were measured five times (V1, V2, V3, V4, and V5), with each point in the figure representing a different pour volume. Standard error bars have already been added to the graph, but the values of the standard errors are very small, which is why they may appear less visible.

• Please justify in the main text why the authors chose sunflower for the study?

Response: Thank you for your valuable question. This already mentioned in section 2.2.2. This plant has the capacity for heavy metal uptake and tolerance, making it a widely used species in phytoremediation research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to my comments and corrected the text.
Figures 4 and 6 are incomplete, which is probably due to track changes being left in the document.
The work is now ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which contributed to a better quality manuscript. We addressed your comments point-by-point as shown below.

 

The abstract is too long. It should be a single paragraph of no more than 200 words.

 Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The abstract has been revised to a single paragraph and reduced to about 200 words, in accordance with your suggestion. It now concisely summarizes the objectives, methods, key findings, and significance of the study while maintaining clarity and scientific accuracy.

If you use the phrase 'According to [9, 10]', try to be more 'human', e.g. 'Many authors agree [...].' As previously confirmed by XXX and YYY [...].

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have revised such phrases throughout the manuscript to adopt a more natural and human tone.

Mining activities, for instance those at the Mahad Al-Dahab site in western Saudi Arabia, significantly increase the burden of HMs in surrounding soils [5, 11–13]. You cannot jump from one topic to another. Please add a paragraph explaining the global problem of HMs (mining, industry and urbanisation), and then introduce the site.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised the introduction to improve the logical flow and coherence. A new paragraph has been added to first discuss the global problem of heavy metal contamination, highlighting major sources such as mining, industrial activity, and urbanization.

Please rewrite the sentence about the process of cleaning up metal-contaminated soils.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been revised for clarity and readability.

 

According to [11, 16] — as above.

Response: Thank you very much. This was corrected accordingly.

Each technique, including excavation, will cost much more than techniques in situ.

Response: We appreciate your valuable comment. We have added this sentence to the above authors [11, 16] as highlighted in the text.

A range of amendments have gained widespread recognition for their effectiveness in phytoremediation. Where did phytoremediation come from? Please provide an introduction to the biological method.

Response: We appreciate your contributions. As per your recommendation, we have included an introduction paragraph that provides a brief overview of the biological remediation approach.

 

EDTA is a well-recognised chelating agent that is highly effective at binding with metals, which makes them easier to remove from soil [17]. Sure, but it's not phytoremediation, it's enhanced phytoremediation.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We agree with your point and have revised the sentence accordingly.

Sulfur amendments/olive mill wastewater (OMW): This paragraph must be rewritten as it is inconsistent. There are some individual thoughts put together, but there is no guiding principle.

Response: Thank you for your helpful observation. We have rewritten the paragraph as highlighted in the text to improve its coherence and logical flow.

In addition to monitoring pH and electrical conductivity (EC) at different depths, column leaching simulates natural infiltration and provides information on metal transport and the effectiveness of the amendments [19, 24, 25]. This is for the methods section.

Response: Thank you for the clarification. We acknowledge the comment and have deleted the sentence from the Introduction as it’s already mentioned in the Methods section, where it more appropriately describes the experimental approach.

It is a very cursory introduction to the work. There is no clearly identified knowledge gap that the authors hope to address. This section of the text needs to be significantly improved.

Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We have modified the Introduction section by rewritten it to enhance its organization, remove unnecessary information, and give the study a clearer perspective.

 

2.1 Please correct this section. It should start with the general location and climate characteristics, followed by the location of the sampling site and the amount of soil collected. Sometimes it is 100 kg and sometimes 200 kg. This is a significant difference.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. The section has been rewritten to start with a general description of the study area and climate, followed by sampling site. Regarding soil quantity, the actual collected amount is 200 kg.

 

2.2 Please rewrite this section, as 'according to [27] methods' provides no useful information, and nobody wants to check methods in other sources.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The sentence has been revised to clearly describe the analytical methods.

2.2.2. The treatments included sulphur at 1 and 2 t/ha, OMW at 5% and 10% (v/w), EDTA at 25 and 50 mmol/kg, and combinations of these at both rates. Please specify what was added where. For example, was it 1 t/ha + 5% + 25 mmol/kg, 1 t/5%/25, 1 t/5%/50, 1 t/10%/50, etc.?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have clarified the description of the treatments in the revised manuscript. the fourth treatment is now clearly defined as a single mixture treatment, where sulfur, olive mill wastewater (OMW), and EDTA were combined together at their higher rates (2 t ha⁻¹ sulfur, 10% OMW, and 50 mmol kg⁻¹ EDTA).

Dried plant tissues were digested – how were they dried? Air or mechanical drying? What was the total weight of the dry and wet samples? How much soil was taken? Was it mixed beforehand? What were the conditions in the greenhouse?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added detailed information on sample preparation and experimental conditions to improve clarity. Shoots and roots were dried in an electrical oven at 72 °C for 48 hours after six weeks of growth. Soil samples from each pot were thoroughly homogenized, air-dried, and sieved. Representative samples of approximately 200 g were taken for analysis further analysis as mentioned in section 2.2.2. The condition of the greenhouse also was added to the section; “The experiment was conducted in a controlled greenhouse conditions with an average temperature of 28 °C, a photoperiod of 14 hours of light and 10 hours of dark, and a relative humidity of 60%”.  

 

Was the water distilled? Tap? How did you test the pH and EC levels in the columns?

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We have revised the description of the column leaching experiment to clarify that the acrylic columns were marked with graduated centimeter scales (as shown in photo 1), to enable precise sampling for the targeted depths (0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–15 cm).  However, for the measurement of soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC), soil samples were mixed with distilled water at a 1:2.5 soil-to-water ratio to ensure accurate and consistent readings using calibrated instruments.

 

2.4. This study followed the methods of references [26, 28–30]. It is sufficient to cite one reference. The same applies to TF (translocation factor).

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have removed two references and remain a single citation.

Table 1

How did you calculate the mean pH?

Response: Thank you for the clarification. The mean soil pH reported in the table was determined from subsamples of the collected soil prior to the start of the experiment.

Which part of the experiment are you describing here?

Response: Thank you for this inquire. This description refers to the characterization of soil properties before the start of the experiment, providing baseline measurements of the soil’s physical and chemical status prior to treatment application.

Fig. 4: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Ni, Pb, Cr, Zn and Cu separately.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have revised Fig. 4 by separating the data for Cd, Mn, Ni, Pb, Cr, Zn, and Cu into individual subfigures.

Fig. 6: It would be more readable if you presented Cd, Mn, Pb, Ni, Zn and Cu separately.

Response: Thank you for the helpful comment. We have revised Fig. 6 by presenting Cd, Mn, Pb, Ni, Zn, and Cu in separate subfigures.

Table 3: Capital letter

Response: Thank you for your important observation. This was edited.

5.2.1. You only tested sunflowers. At least, based on the method section…

(Regni et al., 2021).

Response: Thank you for this valuable notification. We have cited the reference using EndNote style.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf