Evaluation of Multiple Responses Associated with Arsenic Tolerance and Accumulation in Pteris vittata L. Plants Exposed to High As Concentrations under Hydroponics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I am writing this to send my comments as a reviewer on your research article with the following details.

Manuscript title: Evaluation of morphological, physiological and biochemical responses associated to As tolerance and accumulation capability in P. vittata L. plants exposed to high As concentration in a long-term hydroponic experiment

Manuscript Number: water-975324

Journal Submitted: Water

General Comments:

This manuscript mainly deals with the bioaccumulation and tolerance potential of P. vittata plant species when exposed to higher As levels in experimental conditions. This makes it a good case study that falls within the general scope of Water and deserves a good place as a publication. In general, this article is well-written and conveys interesting findings that would attract the attention of a wider readership. The authors have discovered and addressed the existing knowledge-gap on this topic that even adds more value to this article and calls for its publication in Water so that it is disseminated to a wider readership. However, the authors first need to take care of its English language and descript as there are several basic-level English language issues that are not possible to highlight each of them. Therefore, the authors are requested to do two things: English language corrections and “Minor Revisions”.

Please see the specific comments as given below.

Specific Comments:

Title:

The title is too long and wordy. Please try to make it more concise and short.

Abstract:

The abstract is fine but it lacks the conclusions section and what could be the applications of this study? Please add these details as well. Based on my suggestion, I would suggest you revising most of the abstract section. I feel your conclusions section is much better than the abstract.

Introduction:

L 58: display or displayed?

There are too many paragraphs in this section, therefore, you need to make a few of them.

The objectives are not clearly described; therefore, the authors are requested to take care of this issue in the revised manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

L 122: Please describe little more details about the procurement of the plants as well as how they were kept and grown at the nursery.

Overall, this section is very well-written. By following the details provided by the authors, it would be easy for further researchers to follow and replicate this type of research experiment.

Results:

The results are described with all the pertinent details.

Discussion:

The results and the discussions are the strongest parts of this manuscript. The authors have provided sufficient details and relevant literature links. The authors have tried to present their findings in an interesting manner so that it becomes a good read for the other researchers.

Figures and Tables:

The figure and tables are fine and add value to the manuscript.

Conclusions

The conclusions are written really well by highlighting the detailed findings of this study.

References:

The references are citations are good. However, the authors are requested to check if they are properly formatted according to the journal format and cited at their proper places.

Author Response

Response to reviewer  1 are reported in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally speaking, the manuscript by Pietrini is appropriate for this journal. However, it needs some polishing by a native english editor. I recommend major revision. My minor and major remarks are listed below.

Major remarks:

1. The manuscript needs to be polished by a native, english speaking editor. Some sentences are too long, and are not easy to understand.
2. Method description is modest. Certain details are not known (e.g. biomass for analyses), certain methods not described well etc.
3. A few figures could be easily combined.

Title: is there a way to shorten it? Please spell out the genus name.

L15-16: you can easily delete "species" or "plant species"

L17-19: please re-formulate the sentence.

L20-21: please re-formulate the sentence.

L28-30: please re-formulate.

L46: please specify the document. This web page offers a lot of different options and I am not sure which document you are referring to. Please spell out NBS

L58: display?

L68: analogue?

L69: sulfhydryl?

L85: "to" can be replaced by en dash.

L115: "then" can be deleted or replaced with something more suitable.

L122: at our institute.

L133 and throughout: abbreviation for gram is g.

L124-137: details missing. what was the flow rate, what was the water quality, what type of sand did you use? A schematic of apparatus would be greatly appreciated/

L139 and throughout: please unify the way you write units - with slash (e.g. g/L) or negative exponent (e.g. µmol m-2 s-1)? abbreviation for second is s.

L142 and throughout: please unify the unit for liter - L133: smal "l", L142: capital "L"

L143: is nutrient solution the same as nutritive solution (L132-3)?

L151 and throughout: please use a non-breaking space between values and units.

L156: double distilled water.

L155-158: redundant information. Please re-formulate the sentences without repeating. Please provide parameters for the microwave.

L159: please provide more details about this method.what biomass was used for the analysis?

L167-8: ICPMS stands for Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Please use either correct name or correct abbreviation. Which micro and macro nutrients did you analyze?

L169-70: which controls did you use?

L173: mm stands for milimeter.

L171-188: this method is described in details. This is what the other methods should be described like.

L193: please define F0 and Fm

Figures 1-4 could be easily combined, each on one panel (2x2 panels). Please define letters a-d in the captions

Table 1, figure 5: define the letters for significance in the caption.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2 are attached as word document

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I can endorse the manuscript for publication after the authors address minor remarks.

1. Please make sure that you define each letter for statistical significance in the captions.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the endorsement of our Ms for publication. About the minor remark made, we modified the caption of the table 1 in order making it clearer. Briefly, we specified that in each column a different letter type was assigned to each organ (frond, rhizome and root), namely: small letter for frond; superscript letters for rhizome; capital letters for root). 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc