Synergistic Removal of Ciprofloxacin and Sulfamethoxazole by Lemna minor and Salvinia molesta in Mixed Culture: Implications for Phytoremediation of Antibiotic-Contaminated Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted manuscript fits well to the profile of the “Water” journal.

The authors used two macrophytes, L. minor and S. molesta, in their studies to estimate the plants opportunities in water remediation polluted by Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) and sulfamethoxazole (Sulfa). The advantage was to presents the results of plants physiological responses and enzymatic oxidants changes caused by abiotic stress.   

The manuscript is structured well, nevertheless I suggest to read it carefully again to avoid small editorial errors like in line 279 and 280. Actually there is “Figure 2. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (A and B) and malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration (c and d)…” Please change the lower letters in the bracket to the capital letters“… (C and D)…”.

It would be easier to the reader if you write the first time in the “Introduction” and in “Materials and Methods” the names of Cipro and Sulfa as ciprofloxacin (Cipro) and sulfamethoxazole (Sulfa).

I am not a native speaker

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for all of their valuable comments. They were instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have accepted all of the proposed changes and made the appropriate revisions in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Well written , Well presented paper discussing a field of grave importance to the current climate. A comprehensive analysis is conducted to explore the effects of the antibiotics on the plants as well as the proposed analysis of the remediation process of the plants. The study provides a near full picture of the antibiotic removal and their impact on the aquatic plants in the study. The title can use improvements as it can be made much more professional to fit the scientific literature of this journal. 

This manuscript is worth publishing in this journal.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for all of their valuable comments. They were instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript. As suggested, the title was changed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting paper related to very important topic.

Title

-          Suggestion – change title to more scientific

-          "Antimicrobial-contaminated" only 588 records in google, suggestion “Antibiotic-contaminated” 19300 records, if possible

Methods

-          Number of samples/treatments not clearly specified in text [Four flasks were used in each of the treatments…]

-          Abbot’s model is related mostly to medical science, thus short introduction would be useful

-          Statistical analyses are sufficient

Discussion

-          Table 2 – wider and deeper scientific discussion on interactive effects is possible here, there is still more data and papers in this topic

References

-          can be supplemented by works on the interactive effects

Line 98; Araceae – use italic

l. 100; Salviniaceae – italic

l. 363; ‘we examined’ – maybe  ‘it was examined’, consider it throughout the text

l. 503; remove space

l. 580; TiO2 – 2 subscript

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for all of their valuable comments. They were instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have accepted all of the proposed changes and made the appropriate revisions in the new version of the manuscript.

Title Suggestion – change title to more scientific

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comment. As per their suggestion, we have changed the title of the manuscript

-         "Antimicrobial-contaminated" only 588 records in google, suggestion “Antibiotic-contaminated” 19300 records, if possible

The term was changed.

Methods

-          Number of samples/treatments not clearly specified in text [Four flasks were used in each of the treatments…]

We appreciate the reviewer's comment. However, we would like to clarify that the number of samples was already stated in the previous version of the manuscript, specifically in lines 107-108, which read: 'Four flasks were used in each of the treatments (as described below).

-          Abbot’s model is related mostly to medical science, thus short introduction would be useful

We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have added a brief introduction to the Abbot's model and have provided a more defined explanation of the possible result interactions.

Discussion

-          Table 2 – wider and deeper scientific discussion on interactive effects is possible here, there is still more data and papers in this topic

We appreciate the reviewer's comment. We have improved the discussion section by including new studies to support our arguments.

 References

-          can be supplemented by works on the interactive effects

We have improved the discussion section by including new studies to support our arguments. 

Reviewer 4 Report

In the report entitled “Antimicrobial-contaminated water. Let Lemna minor and Salvinia molesta handle it – together or alone!”, authors have studied the capacity of Lemna minor and Salvinia molesta to reclaim Cipro and/or Sulfa. Both L. minor and S. molesta plants showed tolerance and great removal capacity for environmental relevant concentrations of Cipro and/or Sulfa in water. The co-culture of plants can increase the antimicrobial removal capacity of the system. This work seems a system study of treatment of antimicrobial contaminated water by phytoremediation in artificial wetlands. However, it still lack novelty in science and experimental design of this work is still need improved. Some revisions are recommended before accept this paper.

Line 104 and 128, it should be “ºC”, please check.

Line 117, please remove the (unpublished data).

Line 169, please check 3 ml^-1.

Line 221, it should be T₀.

In Figure 1, please check “Cipro = 1.5 μg Cipro l^-1; Sulfa = 0.3 μg Sulfa l^-1”, I think it should be “Cipro = 1.5 μg l^-1; Sulfa = 0.3 μg l^-1”. Please also check other figures and tables.    

Please show the control system results in the figure 5.

In the references parts, please use the uniform style. Some with capital  letter and some was small. Please check and modify it, especially author names, ref.26, 31, 40.

  It is better to improve the language of this manuscript. There are many small mistakes in spelling and grammer.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for all of their valuable comments. They were instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have accepted all of the proposed changes and made the appropriate revisions in the new version of the manuscript.

In the report entitled “Antimicrobial-contaminated water. Let Lemna minor and Salvinia molesta handle it – together or alone!”, authors have studied the capacity of Lemna minor and Salvinia molesta to reclaim Cipro and/or Sulfa. Both L. minor and S. molesta plants showed tolerance and great removal capacity for environmental relevant concentrations of Cipro and/or Sulfa in water. The co-culture of plants can increase the antimicrobial removal capacity of the system. This work seems a system study of treatment of antimicrobial contaminated water by phytoremediation in artificial wetlands. However, it still lack novelty in science and experimental design of this work is still need improved. Some revisions are recommended before accept this paper.

Line 104 and 128, it should be “ºC”, please check.

Line 117, please remove the (unpublished data).

Line 169, please check 3 ml^-1.

Line 221, it should be T₀.

In Figure 1, please check “Cipro = 1.5 μg Cipro l^-1; Sulfa = 0.3 μg Sulfa l^-1”, I think it should be “Cipro = 1.5 μg l^-1; Sulfa = 0.3 μg l^-1”. Please also check other figures and tables.    

All the corrections were performed

Please show the control system results in the figure 5.

Since the concentrations were below the limit of detection (LOD) of the methods, as is often the case, the results are reported as "not detected".

In the references parts, please use the uniform style. Some with capital  letter and some was small. Please check and modify it, especially author names, ref.26, 31, 40.

 References were checked and updated