Foliar Application of Manganese-Zinc Fertilizer Mitigated the Harmful Effects of Cadmium on Wheat and Reduced Human Health Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

The manuscript entitled "Foliar application of manganese-zinc fertilizer mitigated the harmful effects of cadmium on wheat and reduced human health risks" is within the Aims and Scope of the Journal. However there are some shortcomings in the manuscript that require attention of the Athors and these shortcomings are indicated under Specific Comments below:

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. The Authors must provide brief information on the experimental design in the Abstract as this information is currently lacking.
2. Sentence starting from Line 53 to Line 56 is too long and must be splitted into two shorter sentences. The Author must read this sentence carefully especialy the first part under the Line 53 and re-write it.
3. The hypothesis is not clear in this manuscript and Authors need to address this.
4. The subsection "Experimental materials" need to be changed to "Description of the study area".
5.  The Authors must provide brief information on soil type that dominate in the area and the soil type must be given using name as appear under FAO soil classification system for the benefit of international readers. In addition, the climatic conditions of the study area in terms of rainfall and temperatures must be provided. All this information is essential for other readers to replicate and elaborate further on the published results of this experiment.
6. Under sub section "Experimental design", the Authors need to indicate the type of eperimental design, whether Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used in this experiment.
7. The Authors must indicate whether the eperiment was conducted over one planting season or two planting seasons. This is important for the benefit of the readers.
8. The Authors must indicate under subsection "Statistical analysis" whether LSD test or Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used. This information is important to reflect logical connection between Methodology, Results and Discussions. For example letters were used under "Results" section to indicate level of significant, yet it was not indicated under subsection "Statistical analysis" whether LSD or DMRT was used.
9. The Authors must change P-value of 0.000 to P-value 0.001 as the rule of thumb is that P-value 0.000 must be reported as P-value 0.001 because practically it is not possible to have P-value of o.
10. Under section "Conclusion", the Authors must indicate limitations of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the effects of leaf fertilizer on wheat yield, cadmium content and human health risk, which has certain practical significance, but there is still much room for improvement. The following suggestions are for reference only.

1. Since the experiment was conducted for only one growing season, it is difficult to determine the stability of observed foliar fertilizer effect in long-term planting process. It is suggested to carry out multi-season continuous experiment to evaluate the long-term benefit of foliar fertilizer application.
2. The paper did not consider the influence of soil type, climatic conditions and regional differences of wheat varieties on the results. It is suggested to design experiments or cite relevant literature for discussion;
3. The cost-effectiveness of different foliar fertilizer treatments was not analyzed in this paper. To provide additional information on fertilizer cost, application amount and operation cost to evaluate its economic feasibility;
4. The explanation of the mechanism of leaf fertilizer reducing cadmium content and migration in wheat is mainly based on the existing theories such as element antagonism and lack of in-depth research. It is suggested to supplement the relevant research content to deepen the understanding of the mechanism of action;
5. The study concluded that health risks were reduced, but did not make policy recommendations. It is suggested to discuss the implications for heavy metal pollution control regulations based on the research conclusions, and promote the transformation of scientific conclusions into policies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper discusses the effects of leaf fertilizer on wheat yield, cadmium content and human health risk, which has certain practical significance, but there is still much room for improvement. The following suggestions are for reference only.

1. Since the experiment was conducted for only one growing season, it is difficult to determine the stability of observed foliar fertilizer effect in long-term planting process. It is suggested to carry out multi-season continuous experiment to evaluate the long-term benefit of foliar fertilizer application.
2. The paper did not consider the influence of soil type, climatic conditions and regional differences of wheat varieties on the results. It is suggested to design experiments or cite relevant literature for discussion;
3. The cost-effectiveness of different foliar fertilizer treatments was not analyzed in this paper. To provide additional information on fertilizer cost, application amount and operation cost to evaluate its economic feasibility;
4. The explanation of the mechanism of leaf fertilizer reducing cadmium content and migration in wheat is mainly based on the existing theories such as element antagonism and lack of in-depth research. It is suggested to supplement the relevant research content to deepen the understanding of the mechanism of action;
5. The study concluded that health risks were reduced, but did not make policy recommendations. It is suggested to discuss the implications for heavy metal pollution control regulations based on the research conclusions, and promote the transformation of scientific conclusions into policies.

Author Response

Please see the latest attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract, please mention beforehand that the study was done in fields with high cadmium content
Row 31 - CK what the abbreviation means. If you have not yet explained the abbreviation somewhere, please do so
Row 50-51 Cd is more easily adsorbed by crops and 50 is characterised by easily absorbed by crops - two times the same for me, so will choose one option, either ‘Cd is more easily adsorbed by crops’ or ‘Cd is characterised by easily absorbed by crops’
Ro 54-55 ‘crop yield [8], while Cd would be 54 absorbed by crops endanger’, I think ‘crop yield [8] would be better. After absorbed by crops Cd is endanger’
Rows 68-69 - ‘which is conducive to the safe production of wheat 68 and further protect human health’ this is not the objective, so to be removed
Rows 108-112 - I have doubts about the doses. To start with hm2 is 10000 m2? If so then the doses are huge by European standards. 450kg of wheat is three times that in Europe. The N dose is 68kg + 27 + 345 = 440kg - again 3 times the European 210kg P2O5, which is also considerably more. Please check! And what was the dose of foliar fertilisers with single-dose and two-dose application.
Row 238 mobility through three organs, namely, roots, stems, and leaves - no grains here. Coincidence? from the current record, the whole plant has taken up less cadmium, plus some fertilisers further reduce the amount of cadmium in the aboveground parts. Perhaps, for clarity, you could also state the total amount of cadmium taken up by the plants, whether it has decreased and, if so, by how much. I consider this important in the context of cadmium uptake from the soil.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have addressed all my comments. However, I suggest that Authors must avoid starting a sentence with "In conclusion" under the Line 42, that is Authors must delete "In conclusion" in sentence under Line 42 in the Abstract.