The Mechanism of an Fe-Based MOF Material as a Foliar Inhibitor and Its Co-Mitigation Effects on Arsenic and Cadmium Accumulation in Rice Grains
and Shiqiang Wei 1,*
Shunitz Tanaka
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your concern regarding the language quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text and have had it reviewed by a native English speaker to ensure clarity, accuracy, and readability.
Reviewer #4
In this paper, the effect of the foliar inhibitors composed of metal organic framework (MOF) on the mitigation of Cd and As accumulation in rice was investigated. MIL-88 was selected as the foliar inhibitor and that was modified with sodium alginate (SA) to enhance the stability and leaf absorption. The modified MIL-88 (MIL-88@SA) was sprayed at the experimental site of rice field. The effects of MIL-88@SA on the uptake of Cd and As were compared with the control and other Fe-based foliar inhibitors. There are some important results obtained from the field experiment and also the valuable discussion on the mechanism underlying the mitigation of As and Cd accumulation in rice. At the same time, there are some weak points in this paper, especially, in the operations of the field experiment. Therefore, I think this paper has a potential to be published in the journal of Agronomy. However, authors should address the following points before the decision of the acceptance or not.
Comments 1 Line 57, “decreased the iAs content in rice grains”,“iAs”may be inorganic As. Authors should use this term with the explanation.
Response: The Comment 1 of Reviewer #2 also put forward the same questionnaire; Please see the detailed responses there.
Comments 2 Line 96, “The polar groups of the SA chains (e.g., OH, COO-, and short chains) may combine with the wax layer on the surface of the leaves, thus increasing the affinity of MIL-88 for rice leaves”, These polar groups show the hydrophilic property, while wax is hydrophobic. Why do the polar groups increase the affinity for the wax of rice leaves?
Response: The rationale behind the chosen concentration of MIL-88@SA (1% w/v) is based on findings reported by Wang et al.[1] in the Journal of Hazardous Materials (Volume 424, Part A, 15 February 2022, 127361), which demonstrated that Fe-based foliar passivation agents are generally most effective at a concentration of 1% for mitigating cadmium accumulation in rice grains. In addition, our research group has conducted related studies under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42177012), which similarly indicated that a 1% (w/v) concentration of Fe-based foliar passivation agents yields the best results. Therefore, a concentration of 1% (w/v) was selected for use in this experiment, we cited the literature mentioned above to support the rationality in the revised version; Typically, foliar inhibitor requires multiple applications often 2 to 3 times, due to the presence of a thin waxy cuticle on rice leaves, which significantly reduces adhesion and results in substantial agent loss. To address this challenge, we incorporated sodium alginate into the formulation to enhance its affinity to the leaf surface, with the aim to improve its retention and effectiveness. To verify the real effects of our novel foliar inhibitor, we intentionally designed one time spray of our product versus two time sprays of others. We have also revised the main text to include a more detailed description (page 9 and 10, line 291-303, marked by grey background).
Comments 3 Line 104, “the combination FeCl3 plus humic acid (FeCl3+HA) were used for comparison“, Why was humic acid selected for comparison with MIL-88@SA? I think FeCl3+SA is better to know the effects of Fe-based MOF.
Response: Admittedly, FeCl3+SA would be a reasonable comparison group to directly assess the effects of the Fe-based MOF. However, humic acid (HA) was selected as a comparison treatment primarily because it is a naturally occurring organic substance that is readily utilized by plants. Moreover, numerous studies have demonstrated that HA exhibits synergistic effects in nutrient retention and controlled release. Its ability to form stable complexes with metal ions enhances both the availability and the sustained release of nutrients. Therefore, FeCl3+SA was chosen to evaluate and contrast its performance with that of MIL-88@SA, particularly in terms of iron release behavior and bioavailability. This comparison provides a more meaningful assessment of the advantages offered by the MOF-based delivery system.
Comments 4 In the section of 2.1. Preparation of MIL-88@SA, if the preparation was based on the previous report, authors should show the references.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The preparation method of MIL-88@SA was indeed adapted from a previously reported procedure. We have now added the appropriate reference in Section 2.1 to acknowledge the original work and provide readers with detailed methodological background. The revised sentence reads as follows: “MIL-88 was prepared based on a recipe reported elsewhere [2].” The full citation has been included in the References section.
Comments 5 Line 113, “C8H6O4”, The name of this substance should be described.
Response: We have revised the text accordingly to specify that C8H6O4 refers to terephthalic acid. The manuscript has been updated to reflect this change. (page 3, line 113, marked by grey background)
Comments 6 In Table 1, “DTPA-extractable” needs some explanation.
Response: We would like to clarify that “DTPA-extractable” was intended to refer to DTPA-extractable elements, indicating the fraction of metals extractable using diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), a common chelating agent. To avoid confusion, we have added a note below Table 1 to explain this clearly. (page 4, line 157-159, 170-173, marked by grey background)
Comments 6 Line 143, “In the S2 and S3 groups, foliar spraying was performed twice on a cloudy and humid morning (9:00–11:00 a.m.) at the rice tillering and flowering stages. The S4 group was sprayed only once at the tillering stage to visualize the effect”, Why is the number of the spraying times of S4 different from that of S2 and S3? I think it is difficult to compare the data obtained under the different conditions. In addition, the detail of the spraying treatment should be described. The mass valance of the foliar inhibitors should be explained. How many percentages of the total inhibitor were absorbed from the leaves? How many percentages of the total inhibitor were introduced into soil? How about the effect of rain on the inhibitor retained on the leave?
Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. From the perspective of experimental control, we agree that applying the same number of sprays across groups would typically be more appropriate for direct comparison. However, the design of the S4 treatment was intentional. Since the tillering stage precedes the flowering stage in rice development, we selected the flowering stage for a single application in S4 to specifically test whether improved leaf adhesion—achieved by incorporating Sodium alginate (SA) into the foliar inhibitor—could enhance effectiveness while reducing the total amount of spray used. This approach allowed us to investigate whether increased leaf affinity could compensate for reduced application frequency. To support this, we conducted a supplementary experiment evaluating the adhesion of the SA-modified foliar inhibitor to the leaf surface. The results confirmed that the addition of SA significantly improved adhesion, providing a scientific basis for the reduced spraying frequency in S4.( page 5, 6, line 293-305, marked by grey background). In this study, we did not directly quantify the exact percentage of MIL-88@SA absorbed through the leaves, as our primary focus was on its effectiveness in reducing arsenic and cadmium accumulation in rice. However, the rationale for selecting a concentration of 1% (w/v) MIL-88@SA was based on the findings of Wang et al. [1], published in Journal of Hazardous Materials (Volume 424, Part A, 15 February 2022, 127361), which showed that Fe-based foliar passivation agents are most effective at this concentration for mitigating cadmium uptake in rice grains. Future work could explore absorption efficiency in more detail to better understand the uptake dynamics of MIL-88@SA. Thank you for raising this insightful question. While exact quantification of the inhibitor introduced into the soil was not within the scope of this study, previous research on traditional foliar inhibitor has shown that over 95% typically fail to be absorbed and utilized by leaves [3]. In our study, we improved leaf adhesion by incorporating SA into the MIL-88@SA formulation, which significantly enhanced foliar affinity. However, complete (100%) leaf absorption is still not achievable under current conditions. Despite this, we ensured that As and Cd levels in rice grains remained below national safety standards, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach. Moving forward, we are exploring new strategies, such as developing leaf-bound dressings, to achieve full absorption of foliar barrier agents by plants. We appreciate your valuable suggestion and hope to share results from this ongoing research in future publications, potentially in Agronomy.
Comments 8 In Fig 3. (a) Cd and (b) As concentration, Does “As concentration” here mean “iAs concentration”?
Response: Yes, thank you for your attention to this detail. The “As concentration” in Fig. 3 refers specifically to inorganic arsenic (iAs) concentration. We have revised the figure caption accordingly to avoid confusion.
Comments 9 Line 342, “the formation of highly insoluble Fe3(AsO4)2, thereby preventing As uptake by the roots”, Is the formation of Fe3(AsO4)2 confirmed by any methods or references?
Response: Thank you for your valuable question. In our study, we explored the interactions between Fe minerals and As in the root microenvironment using XRD analysis. While the results suggested possible complexation or co-precipitation of arsenic with Fe minerals, the formation of a distinct Fe3(AsO4)2 phase was not conclusively identified. As shown in Figure 1, the mineral composition near the roots appears to involve mixed forms rather than a single, well-defined mineral phase such as Fe3(AsO4)2. Extensive research in literature has investigated the rice rhizosphere microenvironment, particularly the speciation of arsenic within iron plaques and Fe mineral nodules on root surfaces. However, due to the complexity of the root–soil interface and limitations in resolving specific mineral structures, we chose not to overstate these findings in the main text. We agree that the precise migration and transformation mechanisms of As in this microenvironment require further in-depth study, and we intend to pursue this in future research.
Figure 1. XRD pattern of Fe–As compounds in the rhizosphere soil of rice.
Comments 10 In Fig. 5, there is no (c). Please check this figure.
Response: The omission has been corrected, and the updated version of Figure 5 now includes panel (c) as intended.
Comments 11 Line 375, “the Fe-based foliar inhibitors promoted the development of iron plaque, which adsorbs Cd and serves as a source of Cd for the roots”, Does Fe which is absorbed from the leaves develop iron plaque, or does Fe which is introduced into soil at the spraying form the iron plaque? It is necessary to investigate this under the more strict experimental condition, that is, without Fe introduced into soil at the spraying.
Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We agree that it is important to distinguish whether the observed iron plaque formation results from foliar-absorbed Fe or Fe that may have entered the soil during spraying. While our MIL-88@SA formulation was designed to strongly adhere to leaf surfaces, we cannot fully exclude the possibility of Fe entering the soil under field conditions. To more rigorously verify the source and mechanism of iron plaque formation, we agree that hydroponic experiments offer a valuable and controlled approach. In fact, we have already designed follow-up experiments using hydroponic systems to investigate this question. These experiments will also examine the roles of Fe2+ and Fe3+ in plaque formation, as these iron species likely influence the formation dynamics and structure of root-associated Fe plaque. We believe that the insights gained from these controlled studies will deepen our understanding of the Fe-induced barrier mechanism, and we look forward to sharing these results in future publications.
Thank you once again for your valuable comments. We were pleased to find that your suggestions closely align with our future research directions, particularly regarding the migration and transformation mechanisms of elements within the soil–rice root microenvironment. In particular, we aim to further explore the behavior of As and Cd at the mineral–root interface. We sincerely hope to have the opportunity to receive your expert feedback again in our future work.
References
[1]Wang X, Du Y, Li F, et al. Unique feature of Fe-OM complexes for limiting Cd accumulation in grains by target-regulating gene expression in rice tissues. JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 2022, 424, 127361.
[2]Fu H, Song X-X, Wu L, et al. Room-temperature preparation of MIL-88A as a heterogeneous photo-Fenton catalyst for degradation of rhodamine B and bisphenol a under visible light. Materials Research Bulletin, 2020, 125, 110806.
[3]Avellan A, Yun J, Morais B P, et al. Critical Review: Role of Inorganic Nanoparticle Properties on Their Foliar Uptake and in Planta Translocation. Environmental Science & Technology, 2021, 55, 13417-13431.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presents an innovative and timely approach to mitigating the co-accumulation of arsenic (As) and cadmium (Cd) in rice grains through foliar application of a Fe-based metal-organic framework (MIL-88) modified with sodium alginate (MIL-88@SA). The topic is relevant, the experimental design is sound, and the field-based validation provides valuable insights. The study is strengthened by the comprehensive characterization of the material and the application of advanced analytical tools, including CLSM and LA–ICP–MS. The discussion of the underlying mechanisms for metal redistribution and immobilization is well articulated. However, the authors need enhance some aspect before the manuscript can be approved.
Some sections require revision for conciseness and clarity. There are redundant statements and occasionally speculative claims that lack sufficient support from the data.
The rationale behind the chosen concentration of MIL-88@SA (1% w/v) and the number of foliar applications (one vs. two in other treatments) should be explained more clearly.
The thermogravimetric analysis is referenced but not fully presented in the main text or figure section.
The potential environmental risks of using Fe-MOFs at scale (e.g., persistence, toxicity, unintended ecological effects) are only briefly mentioned. While this may be beyond the scope of this work, a short discussion acknowledging these concerns would improve the applicability of the findings.
While the conclusion summarizes findings well, it could be more concise and avoid reiterating points already covered in the abstract.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Co-mitigation effects and mechanisms of a Fe-based MOF material as foliar inhibitor on arsenic and cadmium accumulation in rice grains" (agronomy-3695373). All the comments are very helpful for the improvements of our manuscript, we have carefully revised our manuscript according to Editor and Reviewers' comments. Revised portions in the text are marked in blue and by grey background. Our item-to-item responses are listed as follows.
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors present an innovative and timely approach to mitigating the co-accumulation of arsenic (As) and cadmium (Cd) in rice grains through foliar application of a Fe-based metal-organic framework (MIL-88) modified with sodium alginate (MIL-88@SA). The topic is relevant, the experimental design is sound, and the field-based validation provides valuable insights. The study is strengthened by the comprehensive characterization of the material and the application of advanced analytical tools, including CLSM and LA–ICP–MS. The discussion of the underlying mechanisms for metal redistribution and immobilization is well articulated. However, the authors need enhance some aspect before the manuscript can be approved.
Thank you for your concern regarding the language quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text and have had it reviewed by a native English speaker to ensure clarity, accuracy, and readability.
Comments 1 : Some sections require revision for conciseness and clarity. There are redundant statements and occasionally speculative claims that lack sufficient support from the data.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and insightful suggestions. We have revised the discussion regarding the antagonistic effect of Fe on As transport channels. The role of heavy metal ion transporters in rice roots is indeed important; however, although we conducted relevant proteomic analyses, they were limited by uncontrollable field-scale factors, resulting in non-significant correlations (p > 0.05). Therefore, the original discussion relied more on literature citations and indirect interpretation, and we hope for your understanding in this regard. Redundant content has been removed, with all deletions clearly marked in the revised manuscript (page 12 and 14, line 417-431, 475-489, marked by grey background). We have also added relevant commentary to better engage readers and encourage deeper reflection. Thank you again!
Comments 2 : The rationale behind the chosen concentration of MIL-88@SA (1% w/v) and the number of foliar applications (one vs. two in other treatments) should be explained more clearly.
Response: The rationale behind the chosen concentration of MIL-88@SA (1% w/v) is based on findings reported by Wang et al.[1] in the Journal of Hazardous Materials (Volume 424, Part A, 15 February 2022, 127361), which demonstrated that Fe-based foliar passivation agents are generally most effective at a concentration of 1% for mitigating cadmium accumulation in rice grains. In addition, our research group has conducted related studies under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42177012), which similarly indicated that a 1% (w/v) concentration of Fe-based foliar passivation agents yields the best results. Therefore, a concentration of 1% (w/v) was selected for use in this experiment, we cited the literature mentioned above to support the rationality in the revised version; Typically, foliar inhibitor requires multiple applications often 2 to 3 times, due to the presence of a thin waxy cuticle on rice leaves, which significantly reduces adhesion and results in substantial agent loss. To address this challenge, we incorporated sodium alginate into the formulation to enhance its affinity to the leaf surface, with the aim to improve its retention and effectiveness. To verify the real effects of our novel foliar inhibitor, we intentionally designed one time spray of our product versus two time sprays of others. We have also revised the main text to include a more detailed description (page 9 and 10, line 291-303, marked by grey background).
Comments 3 : The thermogravimetric analysis is referenced but not fully presented in the main text or figure section.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is indeed important, especially for exploring the transformation behavior of the oxide after plant uptake. The relevant discussion has now been added to the revised manuscript (Page 6, Lines 245-247, marked by grey background).
Comments 4 : The potential environmental risks of using Fe-MOFs at scale (e.g., persistence, toxicity, unintended ecological effects) are only briefly mentioned. While this may be beyond the scope of this work, a short discussion acknowledging these concerns would improve the applicability of the findings.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the potential environmental risks of using Fe-MOFs at scale—such as persistence, toxicity, and unintended ecological effects—are important considerations. In fact, safety was a key factor in the design of our foliar passivation agent, which is why Fe-based MOFs were selected. Iron is one of the major elements in the Earth's crust and is naturally abundant in soil systems, and therefore its use is unlikely to pose adverse effects on the environment or plant health. Additionally, we have also conducted preliminary work using Zn-based MOFs for comparison, and we plan to report these results in a forthcoming manuscript to be submitted to Agronomy. A brief discussion acknowledging these environmental considerations has now been added to the revised manuscript (Page 8, Lines 269-274, marked by grey background).
Comments 5 : While the conclusion summarizes findings well, it could be more concise and avoid reiterating points already covered in the abstract.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the conclusion section. In accordance with the formatting guidelines of Agronomy, we have revised and condensed the conclusion to enhance its conciseness and readability, while avoiding repetition of points already presented in the abstract. The corresponding changes can be found in the revised manuscript (Page 16, Lines 499-502, 504-508, marked by grey background). Thank you again for your insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comment
The manuscript “mitigation effects and mechanisms of a Fe-based MOF material as foliar inhibitor on arsenic and cadmium accumulation in rice grains” is interesting, however some things need to be added before submitting again. In addition, you were ambitions, there many things, which you have writing, but you did not measure.
Specific comments
Line 57. What is iAs?
Line 101: You have to delete
Line 101-109. This is part of the methodology
Table 1 is part of the results.
Table 1: You have to describe how you determined that properties.
Table 1: You have to measure total Cd and As
Line 138: Why did you use 1% of foliar application?
Line 151. You have to separate characterization of nanoparticles and plant analysis
Line 151: You have to measure As and Cd in soil
Line 155: Why did you do XRD between 5 and 40?
Line 173; You have to write the equation number.
Line 213; You have to improve the quality of your figure.
Line 323: You did not do study to discuss about mechanism. You have to do biochemical or physiological studies.
Figure 7: You did not describe in the methodology how you did LA-ICP-MS images.
Line 437: You can delete those sentences.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
The manuscript “mitigation effects and mechanisms of a Fe-based MOF material as foliar inhibitor on arsenic and cadmium accumulation in rice grains” is interesting, however some things need to be added before submitting again. In addition, you were ambitions, there many things, which you have writing, but you did not measure.
Specific comments
Comments 1 : Line 57. What is iAs?
Response: In this paper, iAs is used as the abbreviation for inorganic arsenic, which is the main form and most toxic form of arsenic. We have added its full name (inorganic arsenic) at its first appearance in the text of the manuscript (page 2, line 57, marked by grey background). Thank you for your valuable suggestion.
Comments 2 : Line 101: You have to delete; Line 101-109. This is part of the methodology
Response: The content from lines 101 to 109 has been deleted as requested. We have incorporated its main content into the methodology part in the revised manuscript (page 3, line 99-108, marked by grey background).
Comments 3 : Table 1 is part of the results. Table 1: You have to describe how you determined that properties.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In response, we have added a description of the methods used to determine the basic physicochemical properties of the soil, referring to the national standard method (GB 15618–2018). The specific analytical procedures are now detailed in the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript (page 4, lines 149–155, marked by grey background)
Comments 4 : Table 1: You have to measure total Cd and As
Response: We have measured the total concentrations of Cd and As and added the corresponding data to the first and second columns of Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Comments 5 : Line 138: Why did you use 1% of foliar application?
Response: The concentration of foliar inhibitor is critical for its effectiveness. Reviewer #1 also put forward the same questionnaire; Please see the detailed responses there.
Comments 6 : Line 151. You have to separate characterization of nanoparticles and plant analysis
Response: Done according to your suggestion.
Comments 7 : Line 151: You have to measure As and Cd in soil
Response: Thank you for this crucial comment. We confirm that As and Cd concentrations in the soil were indeed measured. The detailed methodology for soil analysis, including total As-Cd and DTPA As-Cd measurements, is described in the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript (page 4, line 157-171, marked by grey background).
Comments 8 : Line 155: Why did you do XRD between 5 and 40?
Response: The characteristic XRD peaks of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) typically appear at low diffraction angles. Therefore, the 2θ range of 5° to 40° was selected in this study to effectively capture the relevant structural features of the MOF material.
Comments 9 : Line 173; You have to write the equation number.
Response: It was done following your suggestion. Additionally, we have included explanations and descriptions regarding the formula in the revised manuscript (page 5, line 209-215, marked by grey background).
Comments 10 : Line 213; You have to improve the quality of your figure.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have improved the quality of the figure on line 213 as requested and replaced it with a higher-resolution version in the revised manuscript.
Comments 11 : Line 323: You did not do study to discuss about mechanism. You have to do biochemical or physiological studies.
Response: In fact, we did conduct molecular-level experiments; however, due to uncontrollable factors in the field trial, the correlation between molecular data and the observed phenomena was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Similar concerns were also raised by Reviewer #1. Accordingly, we have revised the discussion section to shift the focus toward ionic antagonism mechanisms, rather than physiological studies. Please refer to the revised manuscript on page 12 and 14, line 417-431, 475-489, marked by grey background.
Comments 12 : Figure 7: You did not describe in the methodology how you did LA-ICP-MS images.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Considering that LA-ICP-MS is a critical analytical technique, especially for in situ micro-area analysis of metal elements, we have incorporated the sample pretreatment procedures from the supporting literature into the revised manuscript (page 5, line 189-206, marked by grey background). This addition aims to enhance reader interest and improve the manuscript’s readability.
Comments 13 : Line 437: You can delete those sentences.
Response: The Comment 5 of Reviewer #1 also put forward the same questionnaire; Please see the detailed responses there.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The article is interesting, and the topic is highly relevant. The document has been prepared in a manner that is typical for scientific publications. However, as a reviewer I have a few criticisms or points to discuss. The list is provided below.
- There should be a space between the word and the square bracket [] (e.g., lines 33, 35, and others). The entire document should be reviewed and corrected accordingly.
- Instead of "Zhang [17]", it should be "Zhang et al. [17]". Please check all citations throughout the entire document and correct them if such issues are present (e.g., lines 56, 73, and others).
- All abbreviations should be explained when they first appear in the text (e.g. line 84 - "ZIF-").
- Lines 99-100 present the concept and outline of the study, but a clear objective is missing, and no hypothesis has been stated.
- Line 128: In what solution was the soil pH measured, e.g., Hâ‚‚O, KCl, CaClâ‚‚?
- Line 357: "[72] first reported". The author's name is missing.
I do not feel qualified to evaluate the English language and style.
Good luck!
Sincerely yours
Reviewer
Author Response
Reviewer #3
The article is interesting, and the topic is highly relevant. The document has been prepared in a manner that is typical for scientific publications. However, as a reviewer I have a few criticisms or points to discuss. The list is provided below.
Comments 1 : There should be a space between the word and the square bracket [] (e.g., lines 33, 35, and others). The entire document should be reviewed and corrected accordingly.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected all spacing issues between words and square brackets to ensure consistency with formatting standards.
Comments 2 : Instead of "Zhang [17]", it should be "Zhang et al. [17]". Please check all citations throughout the entire document and correct them if such issues are present (e.g., lines 56, 73, and others).
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have thoroughly revised the citation format throughout the manuscript, ensuring that all in-text references adhere consistently to the journal’s formatting guidelines.
Comments 3 : All abbreviations should be explained when they first appear in the text (e.g. line 84 - "ZIF-").
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all abbreviations are clearly defined upon their first appearance in the text to enhance clarity and readability.
Comments 4 : Lines 99-100 present the concept and outline of the study, but a clear objective is missing, and no hypothesis has been stated.
Response: A similar suggestion was raised by Reviewer #1, and we have revised the introduction accordingly to clearly state the objective and research hypothesis of the study. The content from lines 101 to 109 has been deleted as requested. In addition, we have added a brief description of this work along with its future prospects to improve the revised manuscript (page 3, line 99-10, marked by grey background)
Comments 5 : Line 128: In what solution was the soil pH measured, e.g., Hâ‚‚O, KCl, CaClâ‚‚?
Response: According to the national standard for the determination of soil pH (HJ 962-2018), water is used as the extractant, with a water-to-soil ratio of 2.5:1. To enhance the accuracy of the analytical methodology, we have included a detailed description in the revised manuscript (page 3, line 126-127, marked by grey background).
Comments 6 : Line 357: "[72] first reported". The author's name is missing.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading and thoughtful comments. The study by Tiwari M et al. was originally included; however, following Reviewer #1 suggestion to revise the related discussion, we have refocused this section on the antagonistic interaction between Fe and As ions. As a result, the reference to Tiwari M et al. has been removed in the revised version of the manuscript to maintain thematic coherence.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have addressed almost of the reviewer’s comments and revised the paper adequately. The addition of Fig. 3(Contact angle measurements of rice leaves treated with different foliar inhibitors) is effective to understand the role of SA for the affinity between leaves and MIL-88@SA and the revised text is also adequate. The answer of the authors to the question from the reviewer, “Does Fe which is absorbed from the leaves develop iron plaque, or does Fe which is introduced into soil at the spraying form the iron plaque?” is still not enough but I want to expect author’s future studies on this issue. So I think the current version of this paper is now suitable for the publication in Agronomy.
Please check the following, Line 173, “0.01 mol/L CaCl2”, maybe CaCl2.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and for recommending our manuscript for publication in Agronomy. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the paper.Regarding your note on Line 173, we have carefully checked the text. You are correct—“0.01 mol/L CaCl2” should indeed be “0.01 mol/L CaCl2.” We have made this correction in the revised manuscript.
We appreciate your support and constructive input, and we look forward to continuing our research on the formation mechanism of iron plaque in future studies.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear
You have answered most of my comments; however, you have been a little careful.
Author Response
Thank you for your concern regarding the language quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the text and have had it reviewed by a native English speaker to ensure clarity, accuracy, and readability.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
It is an interesting manuscript.
However, at this time you should show figures with good quality in order to enhance the scientific interpretation of the results. In addition,
Tables should go at the correct part of the manuscript.
You must use abbreviations after you have mentioned them.
Avoid abbreviations in conclusion section
Finally, I encourage you to carefully revise your work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. I sincerely appreciate your careful review of our manuscript. We will address all the points you raised as follows:
We will improve the quality of the figures to ensure they clearly enhance the scientific interpretation of the results. All tables will be placed at their appropriate locations within the manuscript, corresponding to where they are first mentioned. We will ensure that abbreviations are introduced fully upon first mention and consistently used thereafter. Abbreviations will not be used in the conclusion section, as you advised. Finally, we will thoroughly revise the entire manuscript to improve clarity, consistency, and overall quality.
Thank you again for your constructive comments. We are confident that these revisions will strengthen the manuscript.
