Compost Mitigates Metal Toxicity and Human Health Risks and Improves the Growth and Physiology of Lettuce Grown in Acidic and Neutral Loam-Textured Soils Polluted with Copper and Zinc
, Marius Praspaliauskas 2, Irena Vaskeviciene 2, Ahmed Hosney 1 and Karolina Barcauskaite 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor, Dear Authors,
The paper focuses on the use of compost in soils contaminated by irrigation practices using Cu- and Zn-polluted wastewater. The manuscript is clear, even if the discussion could be improved, its structure is well laid out. The contribution of this manuscript is interesting, even though it deals with a subject that has already been extensively researched. The experimental design seems appropriate to test the hypothesis, and the obtained results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The cited references are mostly recent publications and relevant in the field (apart from ref 42 that it is not published on the web).
The figures and tables are appropriate and, subject to some changes highlighted below, present the data correctly and are they easy to interpret. Data are appropriately presented and discussed throughout the manuscript. The associated statistical analysis is correct and appropriate.
Conclusions are week, should be improved (e.g. Drow conclusion on the concentration of compost in relation to the concentration of heavy metals in soil and the associated health risk).
The English language should be improved, especially in the discussion section, which is now difficult to read and evaluate.
Overall, when the authors mention "metal tolerance", it would be more correct to wright "metal tolerance index".
Specific comments pointing out inaccuracies in the text are given below with references to line numbers, figure numbers or to the section.
It is my hope that the amendments will contribute to a higher quality of the paper.
Title: If the editor allows the title to be changed, it could be made more fluent. Additionally, it would be better to mention "human health risk" instead of "health risk".
L16: “The experiment consists of sixteen treatments involving two distinct soils with compost addition and NoCompost and irrigated with unpolluted WW…..”, please change to “The experiment consists of sixteen treatments involving two different soils with and without compost addition (Compost and NoCompost) and irrigated with unpolluted WW …..
L18: “In results” is not used in English
L29-30: Please correct the English language. In any case, it would be better to focus the conclusion of the abstract on the effect of the compost rather than on the toxicity of two metals that have been extensively studied in the scientific literature.
L 38: Which metal is meant by "these metals"?
L 58: change “Moreover” with “In fact”
L 78: add “of Lactuca sativa” after “biological compound”
In the Introduction section, it would be interesting to add some lines on the regulatory limits of Cu and Zn concentrations in wastewater and/or the concentration range currently found in natural wastewater.
L 73: Please mention the dimension of Petri dish used for the test
L 75: It would be better not to mention "LD50" as the present study investigated the first effective concentration among those tested and not the LD50. The same for Line 185.
L76 Please change the phrase “For this, firstly lettuce seeds were ten seeds of Lactuca sativa L. (Grand Rapids, UAB Agrofirma) were sown on …..” with “ten seeds of Lactuca sativa L. (Grand Rapids, UAB Agrofirma) were sown on …”
L78: It would be better to give all the concentrations tested and not just their range.
L 79: please add the verb “was” after “control”
Section 2.2: There are several references without the reference number (eg. WRB IUSS, 2014, ISO 11277: 2020, Swify et al. 2022 and several others)
L 92: Please specify the acronym "WRB".
L 94: Please cancel “in”
Table 1: It would be useful to specify the pH of wastewater and compost
L 121-123 Please describe the shape and dimensions of the pots and mention whether they are closed or open at the bottom.
L129: please replace “;” with “:”
L 135-136: Please explain whether contaminated water has leached out of the pot (open system) or not (closed system).
L 137: In the phrase “…K were according to the suggested rates, using a standard salt of KH2PO4 “ a verb is missing
L156: It would be useful to specify the formulae used to estimate the metal uptake and transfer factor.
L 158: Please change “DMI” into “DIM”
L 191: Please change “copper” with “zinc” in the caption of table 3
L206: The phrase is not clear, perhaps you mean "metal tolerance index" instead of “metal tolerance”, the same for L 209-210.
- 210: replace “…lettuce plants when irrigated Cu and CuZn-polluted WW in both soils…” with “…lettuce plants when irrigated with Cu and CuZn-polluted WW only in neutral soil…”, as the difference is not significant in acidic soil.
L 219: Please delete “..compared to untreated NoCompost soils.”
Figure 1: in the legend “comopost” with “ compost”. The control appears to be identified as "ck" but is not explicitly mentioned. Concerning the graph “f”, please replace the label of the ordinate axis with: “metal tolerance index%”
L 256: please delete “under Nocompost treatment”
L 258: please delete “untreated”
L 264: please delete “untreated”
L 270-271: please better explain the concept
Figure 2: in the legend add “ compost”, there is only “noCompost”. In the graphs a and b the label of the ordinate axis should be spaced from the axis
L 275: please delete “under Nocompost treatment”
Figure 3: Replace "comopost" with "compost" in both legends. The Cu and Zn transfer factors should be better represented by bar graphs rather than line graphs, which are usually used to track changes over time.
L 300: change bold to normal style.
L 309-310: The sentence is not clear, it would be better to mention the percentage reduction compared to each NoCompost polluted treatment (instead of "unpolluted control under NoCompost conditions").
Figure 3: Replace "comopost" with "compost" in the legend
Section 3.2.5: It would be interesting to highlight and explain (in the discussion session) the relation found between Polyphenols and Zn uptake
L 346: Please replace “ However” with “ Notably” or “in particular”
Figure 6: better describe in the legend the meaning of the different sizes and colours of the circles
Section 4 The English of this whole section should be reviewed. There are a lot of language errors and it is difficult to understand. In general, it would be better to give more attention to the role of the compost rather than the toxicity of Cu compared to the toxicity of Zn (also because the tested concentrations of the pollutant have been defined by the authors).
L 357: delete “of”
L 359: replace “radicles” with “radicals”
L 361: Please discuss if the selected concentration environmental representative
L 359: replace “radicles” with “radicals”
L 417-418: replace “availability of the metals in the soil solution ” with “uptake”
L 448: To what “higher” is referred? (Higher than …what?)
L 458: HRI has been already described (Line 159)
L 480: “nature’s gold” is not in line with scientific language
Section 5: It would be interesting to draw some conclusions on the concentration of compost required to prevent human health risks from Cu and Zn contamination of irrigation water, at least for the tested concentrations.
L 487: The phrase “The findings of the experiment demonstrated that acidic soil has more detrimental” is probably clearer as follows: “The findings of the experiment demonstrated that polluted acidic soil has more detrimental”
L 488-490: When the authors wright about the “Cu-polluted wastewater” and “Zn-polluted wastewater” it would be better to limit the conclusion to the “tested Cu-polluted wastewater” and “tested Zn-polluted wastewater”
L 490-492: Please, better explain the concept
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language should be improved, especially in the discussion section, which is now difficult to read and evaluate.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment 1
The paper focuses on the use of compost in soils contaminated by irrigation practices using Cu- and Zn-polluted wastewater. The manuscript is clear, even if the discussion could be improved, its structure is well laid out. The contribution of this manuscript is interesting, even though it deals with a subject that has already been extensively researched. The experimental design seems appropriate to test the hypothesis, and the obtained results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The cited references are mostly recent publications and relevant in the field (apart from ref 42 that it is not published on the web).
Response
Thank you for the encouraging comments on our manuscript. All the suggestions have been properly addressed, and all the sections, including the discussion, have been improved following the comments. Reference 42 has been replaced with a relevant reference from Springer Publishers (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-18354-6_29).
Comment 2
The figures and tables are appropriate and, subject to some changes highlighted below, present the data correctly and are they easy to interpret. Data are appropriately presented and discussed throughout the manuscript. The associated statistical analysis is correct and appropriate.
Response
Thank you for the positive comments. All the suggestions regarding the Figures and Tables have been incorporated following the comments.
Comment 3
Conclusions are week, should be improved (e.g. Drow conclusion on the concentration of compost in relation to the concentration of heavy metals in soil and the associated health risk).
Response
Agreed, following the comment, the conclusion section has been modified.
Comment 4
The English language should be improved, especially in the discussion section, which is now difficult to read and evaluate.
Response
Following the comment, the English language errors have been extensively reviewed and corrected using the subscribed version of Grammarly.
Comment 5
Overall, when the authors mention "metal tolerance", it would be more correct to wright "metal tolerance index".
Response
Agreed, the term "metal tolerance" has been replaced with "metal tolerance index" throughout the manuscript.
Comment 6
Specific comments pointing out inaccuracies in the text are given below with references to line numbers, figure numbers or to the section.
It is my hope that the amendments will contribute to a higher quality of the paper.
Response
All the suggestions have been incorporated.
Yes, your suggestions significantly improved our manuscript quality.
Comment 7
Title: If the editor allows the title to be changed, it could be made more fluent. Additionally, it would be better to mention "human health risk" instead of "health risk".
Response
Agreed, the title is modified now “Compost lessens metal toxicity and human health risks and improves the growth and physiology of lettuce grown in acidic and neutral loam-textured
soils polluted with copper and zinc”.
Comment 8
L16: “The experiment consists of sixteen treatments involving two distinct soils with compost addition and NoCompost and irrigated with unpolluted WW…..”, please change to “The experiment consists of sixteen treatments involving two different soils with and without compost addition (Compost and NoCompost) and irrigated with unpolluted WW …..
Response
Following the comment, the sentence has been revised.
Comment 9
L18: “In results” is not used in English
Response
Agreed, “In results” replaced with Results illustrated that”.
Comment 10
L29-30: Please correct the English language. In any case, it would be better to focus the conclusion of the abstract on the effect of the compost rather than on the toxicity of two metals that have been extensively studied in the scientific literature.
Response
Agreed, the conclusion of the Abstract has been revised and replaced with the suggested remarks. Now it looks clearer and better according to the title.
“Conclusively, the addition of compost at the rate of 2% substantially alleviated the metal toxicity thereafter human health risks in both soils.”.
Comment 11
L 38: Which metal is meant by "these metals"?
Response
Following the comment, "these metals" is replaced with “heavy metals”.
Comment 12
L 58: change “Moreover” with “In fact”
Response
Agreed, “Moreover” is replaced with “In fact”.
Comment 13
L 78: add “of Lactuca sativa” after “biological compound”
Response
Agreed, the scientific name has been incorporated and the sentence has been modified.
“biological compounds of Lactuca sativa”.
Comment 14
In the Introduction section, it would be interesting to add some lines on the regulatory limits of Cu and Zn concentrations in wastewater and/or the concentration range currently found in natural wastewater.
Response
Agreed, the regulatory limits of metal in wastewater and their detected concentrations have been incorporated.
“The FAO allowable levels for Cu and Zn in irrigation water are 0.2 and 2 mg L-1, respectively [1]. The total concentrations of both metals in collected wastewater were detected within the safe limits (<0.02 mg L-1) (Table 1). However, based on the a) higher levels of these metals recorded in the sewage sludge of wastewater [2], and b) screening tests (Table 2); the collected wastewater was further polluted with these metals”.
Comment 15
L 73: Please mention the dimension of Petri dish used for the test
Response
Incorporated with dimension and company detail.
“Petri dish (90×15 mm, Ratiolab GmbH Germany)”.
Comment 16
L 75: It would be better not to mention "LD50" as the present study investigated the first effective concentration among those tested and not the LD50. The same for Line 185.
Response
Following the comment, LD50 is deleted throughout the manuscript.
Comment 17
L76 Please change the phrase “For this, firstly lettuce seeds were ten seeds of Lactuca sativa L. (Grand Rapids, UAB Agrofirma) were sown on …..” with “ten seeds of Lactuca sativa L. (Grand Rapids, UAB Agrofirma) were sown on …”
Response
Following the comment the sentence has been rephrased as “Ten seeds of Lactuca sativa L. (Grand Rapids, UAB Agrofirma) were sown on double filter paper in petri dishes”.
Comment 18
L78: It would be better to give all the concentrations tested and not just their range.
Response
Agreed, concentration levels described with detail as “Different Cu (2.5, 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg L-1) and Zn (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 mg L-1) concentrations were prepared ”.
Comment 19
L 79: please add the verb “was” after “control”
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 20
Section 2.2: There are several references without the reference number (eg. WRB IUSS, 2014, 11277: 2020, Swify et al. 2022 and several others)
Response
Following the comment, the number format has been mentioned for all the suggested references in the texts.
Comment 21
L 92: Please specify the acronym "WRB".
Response
Incorporated as World Reference Base (WRB).
Comment 22
L 94: Please cancel “in”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 23
Table 1: It would be useful to specify the pH of wastewater and compost
Response
Agreed, the pH of wastewater and compost has been mentioned.
Comment 24
L 121-123 Please describe the shape and dimensions of the pots and mention whether they are closed or open at the bottom.
Response
Mentioned with detail “(closed bottom, height 11.5 cm, diameter at the top 13 cm, diameter of the bottom 8 cm”.
Comment 25
L129: please replace “;” with “:”
Response
Replaced.
Comment 26
L 135-136: Please explain whether contaminated water has leached out of the pot (open system) or not (closed system).
Response
Already mentioned that pots have closed bottoms.
Comment 27
L 137: In the phrase “…K were according to the suggested rates, using a standard salt of KH2PO4 “ a verb is missing
Response
The missing verb “applied” is inserted.
Comment 28
L156: It would be useful to specify the formulae used to estimate the metal uptake and transfer factor.
Response
Agreed, the equation for both measurements have been incorporated.
Comment 29
L 158: Please change “DMI” into “DIM”
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 30
L 191: Please change “copper” with “zinc” in the caption of table 3
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 31
L206: The phrase is not clear, perhaps you mean "metal tolerance index" instead of “metal tolerance”, the same for L 209-210.
210: replace “…lettuce plants when irrigated Cu and CuZn-polluted WW in both soils…” with “…lettuce plants when irrigated with Cu and CuZn-polluted WW only in neutral soil…”, as the difference is not significant in acidic soil.
Response
Agreed, the term "metal tolerance" has been replaced with "metal tolerance index" throughout the manuscript.
The sentence has been rephrased following the suggestion. “when irrigated with Cu and CuZn-polluted WW only in neutral soil compared to untreated NoCompost soils”.
Comment 32
L 219: Please delete “..compared to untreated NoCompost soils.”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 33
Figure 1: in the legend “comopost” with “ compost”. The control appears to be identified as "ck" but is not explicitly mentioned. Concerning the graph “f”, please replace the label of the ordinate axis with: “metal tolerance index%”
Response
Agreed.
The legend is corrected.
Yes, control is identified as Ck because of limited space. We already tried with full form but it doesn’t fit.
The label for graph ‘f’ is corrected and identified as “Metal tolerance index”.
Comment 34
L 256: please delete “under Nocompost treatment”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 35
L 258: please delete “untreated”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 36
L 264: please delete “untreated”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 37
L 270-271: please better explain the concept
Response
Explained as “Because in this treatment, Cu concentration was less compared to Cu- or CuZn-polluted WW, hence, preferred to be transferred to above-ground parts by plants”.
Comment 38
Figure 2: in the legend add “ compost”, there is only “noCompost”. In the graphs a and b the label of the ordinate axis should be spaced from the axis
Response
Cross-checked, Figure is fine.
Comment 39
L 275: please delete “under Nocompost treatment”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 40
Figure 3: Replace "comopost" with "compost" in both legends. The Cu and Zn transfer factors should be better represented by bar graphs rather than line graphs, which are usually used to track changes over time.
Response
Corrected.
Line graphs are replaced with bar graphs.
Comment 41
L 300: change bold to normal style.
Response
Corrected.
Comment 42
L 309-310: The sentence is not clear, it would be better to mention the percentage reduction compared to each NoCompost polluted treatment (instead of "unpolluted control under NoCompost conditions").
Response
Agreed, the percentage reduction has been described.
Comment 43
Figure 3: Replace "comopost" with "compost" in the legend
Response
Corrected.
Comment 44
Section 3.2.5: It would be interesting to highlight and explain (in the discussion session) the relation found between Polyphenols and Zn uptake
Response
Agreed, the possible relation between Polyphenols and Zn uptake has been described with reference in the discussion section.
“The correlation analysis also depicted a positive relationship between polyphenols (polyphenols, polyphenolic acids) and Zn uptake (Fig. 6). It showed biosynthesis and accumulation of phenolic compounds under Zn toxicity ultimately their role in better survival under stressful environments [61]”.
Comment 45
L 346: Please replace “ However” with “ Notably” or “in particular”
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 46
Figure 6: better describe in the legend the meaning of the different sizes and colours of the circles
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 47
Section 4 The English of this whole section should be reviewed. There are a lot of language errors and it is difficult to understand. In general, it would be better to give more attention to the role of the compost rather than the toxicity of Cu compared to the toxicity of Zn (also because the tested concentrations of the pollutant have been defined by the authors).
Response
The whole manuscript has been checked with Grammarly to correct grammatical mistakes.
Typo errors have been corrected.
The role of compost has been significantly highlighted wherever possible.
The tested concentrations of Cu and Zn were evaluated based on the results of screening tests, which are already explained in detail.
Comment 48
L 357: delete “of”
Response
Deleted.
Comment 49
L 359: replace “radicles” with “radicals”
Response
Both seemingly terms have been corrected.
Radicle = Root growth
Radicals = Reactive oxygen species
Comment 50
L 361: Please discuss if the selected concentration environmental representative
Response
In this section, the only purpose to depict metal levels that caused a 50% reduction in seedlings/studied parameters. Later, Cu and Zn toxicity has been well explained keeping in view the environmental impacts in terms of human health risks (daily intake also).
Comment 51
L 417-418: replace “availability of the metals in the soil solution ” with “uptake”
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 52
L 448: To what “higher” is referred? (Higher than …what?)
Response
Rephrased to make it clearer “Cu-polluted WW gave TF values >1”.
Comment 53
L 458: HRI has been already described (Line 159)
Response
It is a separate section “Discussion” so HRI first explained in full form.
Comment 54
L 480: “nature’s gold” is not in line with scientific language
Response
Deleted.
Comment 55
Section 5: It would be interesting to draw some conclusions on the concentration of compost required to prevent human health risks from Cu and Zn contamination of irrigation water, at least for the tested concentrations.
Response
Agreed, the suggestion has been incorporated.
“Application of compost at the rate of 2% substantially reduced daily intake and associated health risks in lettuce crop grown in soil irrigated with Cu (20 mg L-1) and Zn (80 mg L-1) polluted wastewater. So, this study underscores the compost application as a practical strategy to manage metal-contaminated acidic and neutral soils for resilient agricultural productivity”.
Comment 56
L 487: The phrase “The findings of the experiment demonstrated that acidic soil has more detrimental” is probably clearer as follows: “The findings of the experiment demonstrated that polluted acidic soil has more detrimental”
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 57
L 488-490: When the authors wright about the “Cu-polluted wastewater” and “Zn-polluted wastewater” it would be better to limit the conclusion to the “tested Cu-polluted wastewater” and “tested Zn-polluted wastewater”
Response
Incorporated throughout the conclusion section.
Comment 58
L 490-492: Please, better explain the concept
Response
The suggestion has been incorporated.
Comment 59
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language should be improved, especially in the discussion section, which is now difficult to read and evaluate.
Response
The whole manuscript has been checked with Grammarly to correct grammatical mistakes.
Typo errors have been corrected.
The discussion has been revised wherever possible.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting and addresses the important issue of plant nutrition, fertilisation and the use of bio-waste recovery processes. I would suggest using PCA analysis. It allows data to be visualised in a lower dimension, making it easier to interpret results and identify relationships between variables.
Both the introduction and the discussion are rather general. I would suggest going into more detail. Here we only get an introduction to the introduction and I think the authors can do a better job.
In general, the work is done correctly but needs some fine tuning:
40-41 please add zinc before (Zn)
46-48 please rewrite this sentence. what is low pH and what is high pH?
103 1:10 by weight?
106 microwave digestion?
118 Table 1 Why is there no pH for wastewater or compost, organic matter for compost, etc.?
124-126 Was it mixed? How?
130-136 Please add some box plots for clarification.
Table 2 and 3 You can combine these 2, it will be easier to compare the influence of each metal.
Figure 1 what is Ck?
Table 4 what are a-f?
268 Please add an explanation in the method section (how it was counted, limits, etc.).
Figure 2 please add legend (compost missing)
Fig. 3 Please use a different type of graph, these are not time series.
353-357 we already know that
373-378 Citation
480 Please avoid such comparisons
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment 1
The paper is interesting and addresses the important issue of plant nutrition, fertilisation and the use of bio-waste recovery processes. I would suggest using PCA analysis. It allows data to be visualised in a lower dimension, making it easier to interpret results and identify relationships between variables.
Response
Agreed, the relationship among variables is illustrated by correlation analysis.
Keeping in view the suggestion, the PCA also drawn and used in the text as Figure 7 wherever possible.
Comment 2
Both the introduction and the discussion are rather general. I would suggest going into more detail. Here we only get an introduction to the introduction and I think the authors can do a better job.
Response
With all due respect to the reviewer’s comment, the discussion section has been checked and modified where possible.
Comment 3
In general, the work is done correctly but needs some fine tuning:
Response
Agreed, all the minor comments have been incorporated.
Comment 4
40-41 please add zinc before (Zn)
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 5
46-48 please rewrite this sentence. what is low pH and what is high pH?
Response
Agreed, the sentence has been modified and is clearer now with a related reference. “Such as acidic soils (low pH) contain more available metal ions compared to neutral and alkaline soils (high pH) ultimately increasing metal uptake result in excessive accumulation of metals in crop plants [9].
Comment 6
103 1:10 by weight?
Response
Corrected. “Available Cu and Zn concentrations were extracted using 1M HCl (1:10 w/v)”.
Comment 7
106 microwave digestion?
Response
Yes, the microwave digestion apparatus was used and the process has been described in detail.
Comment 8
118 Table 1 Why is there no pH for wastewater or compost, organic matter for compost, etc.?
Response
Agreed, the pH of wastewater or compost and compost is given in Table 1.
Comment 9
124-126 Was it mixed? How?
Response
Firstly, 980 g of soil was weighed in the pots and added with 20 g of compost. Then mixed thoroughly to ensure uniform distribution of compost in the soil.
Comment 10
130-136 Please add some box plots for clarification.
Response
The experiment layout is clearly described.
“A factorial layout experiment consisting of 16 treatments: acidic soil and neutral soil, with compost and without compost (NoCompost), and WW polluted irrigations (2 soils × 2 compost levels × 4 wastewater irrigations). Then each treatment combination was replicated three times resulting in a total of 48 experimental units. Each pot received a total of 12 irrigations with 1.6 L of WW throughout the growth period of 7 weeks. Hence, each Cu- and Zn-polluted WW irrigated pots received 80 mg and 320 mg of Cu and Zn, respectively”.
Comment 11
Table 2 and 3 You can combine these 2, it will be easier to compare the influence of each metal.
Response
The purpose of these tests was to assess the individual effects of each metal on seedlings parameters. So that we may able to select only one level from all tested levels of each metal (7 levels for Cu and 8 levels for Zn including control). Thereafter, to check their individual and combined toxicity on lettuce plants in the main pot experiment. Thereby, both tables are presented separately.
Please see the blue color highlighted texts in the Results and Discussion section of “screening tests”.
Comment 12
Figure 1 what is Ck?
Response
The ‘Ck’ is used for control, due to space limitations on X-Axis.
Following the comment, the full from “Ck = Control” is given.
Comment 13
Table 4 what are a-f?
Response
These are statistical letters and are described in the Table legend.
Data are the mean of three replicates ±SD in the brackets, and the same superscript statistical letters on the bracket in the column are non-significant to each other statistically according to Tukey’s HSD tests.
Comment 14
268 Please add an explanation in the method section (how it was counted, limits, etc.).
Response
Agreed, the formulas for both transfer factor and metal uptake have been given in the method section.
Comment 15
Figure 2 please add legend (compost missing)
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 16
Fig. 3 Please use a different type of graph, these are not time series.
Response
Agreed, Line graphs are replaced with bar graphs.
Comment 17
353-357 we already know that
Response
Agreed, the sentence has been deleted and refined.
Comment 18
373-378 Citation
Response
Incorporated.
Comment 19
480 Please avoid such comparisons
Response
Agreed, the sentence was modified.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor, dear Authors,
in my opinion the manuscript is now publishable
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the paper have responded to my comments. The text of the paper has been completed and is suitable for publication in its present form.
