An Analysis of the Reaction of Frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to Cadmium Contamination with a View to Its Use in the Phytoremediation of Water Bodies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

This is a clear and well-written manuscript, dealing with the use of one of the popular macrophytes - Hydrocharis morsus-ranae to assess the degree of water pollution with the toxic metal cadmium. Also noteworthy in the chapter entitled “Discussion of results” where the research results were discussed in detail according to available literature.

The manuscript entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with a view to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies" in present form is good enough to be considered for publication with your esteemed journal.

So according to my point of view I support this article to be published in Applied Sciences.

Minor notes:

1. The authors of the manuscript described the research methodology in great detail. However, due to the considerable number of pages, the work would gain clarity if the chapter "Material and Methods" were slightly shortened.

2. Authors should change the commas to dots on the vertical axis in the Figure 5 (The tolerance index of Hydrocharis morsus-ranae in the three tested growing seasons).

3. In the chapter "Introduction" there are in brackets abbreviations, which are not used later, therefore they should be removed.

4. The double names should be removed from the figures, as they are present both on the graph and below it.

5. Line 462 - "+" - they should be written at the top of the letter K.

6. Line 630 (6th column, 2nd line) - the unit should be corrected “mg g-1”.

7. Line 665 (first column, first line in table 15) - the unit should be corrected “Cd mg/l” on “mg dm-3”

8. I'm suggesting to shortening the subsection - 2.11. Meteorological conditions in three research seasons

Author Response

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 1

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 1.

Reviewer #1 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

1. The authors of the manuscript described the research methodology in great detail. However, due to the considerable number of pages, the work would gain clarity if the chapter "Material and Methods" were slightly shortened.

The content of the chapter "Material and Methods” have been shortened (lines 85-269).

2. Authors should change the commas to dots on the vertical axis in the Figure 5 (The tolerance index of Hydrocharis morsus-ranae in the three tested growing seasons).

The notation of numerical values in Fig. 5 has been corrected (line 381).

3. In the chapter "Introduction" there are in brackets abbreviations, which are not used later, therefore they should be removed.

In the chapter "Introduction" the abbreviations has been removed (lines 32-34).

4. The double names should be removed from the figures, as they are present both on the graph and below it.

The repetitive titles of figures (2,3,4,5) have been removed (lines 291,316,353,380).

5. Line 462 - "+" - they should be written at the top of the letter K.

The sign "+" is written as superscript (line 495).

6. Line 630 (6th column, 2nd line) - the unit should be corrected “mg g-1”.

In the table 14 (6^th column, 2^nd line) the entry of the unit has been corrected (line 664).

7. Line 665 (first column, first line in table 15) - the unit should be corrected “Cd mg/l” on “mg dm-3”.

            In table 15 (1th column, 1th line) the entry of the unit has been corrected (line 721).

8. I'm suggesting to shortening the subsection - 2.11. Meteorological conditions in three research seasons.

Removed unnecessary information and shortened the description of meteorological conditions (lines 127-144).

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript focused on the plant response to cadmium contamination under hydroponic nutrient addition. The overall quality is fine, however, the materials and methods need substantial improvement to make the experiment repeatable. The experimental design needs to be well articulated.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 2

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 2.

Reviewer #2 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

The materials and methods need substantial improvement to make the experiment repeatable. The experimental design needs to be well articulated.

The "Material and Methods" section has been extended with information to ensure repeatability of the experiment

The notes from the manuscript:

1. from XXX year to XXX year?

In the section "Material and methods" was added information about the years in which the experiment was performed (line 88).

2. Please add GPS coordinates.

In the section "Material and methods" geographical coordinates have been added for the location of the ZUT vegetation hall in Szczecin, where the experiment was carried out (line 89,90).

3. Please add from XXX to XXX time?

In the section "Material and methods" as provided information on the length of the growing season (line 91).

4. Is this a high tunnel? Was the plastic cover sheet transparent?

In the section "Material and methods" as provided information on high and the type of material covering from above the vegetation hall (line 91,92).

5. Please change to 0,05-2 mm.

In the section "Material and methods" the order of numbers has been changed (from smaller to larger) (line 99).

6. Please see the previous comment.

In the section "Material and methods" the order of numbers has been changed (from smaller to larger) (line 99).

7. <0.002 mm?

In the section "Material and methods" the reduction sign has been added (line 99).

8. Please rephrase this sentence and specify the 'slightly acid reaction', 'low levels of assimilable forms of P, K, and Mg. That is to say, what level of acid reaction will be defined as 'slight'? What level of P, K, and Mg will be regarded as 'low level'? What are the assimilable forms?

Missing information was supplemented (line 99-102).

9. Please add a citation of the soil standard to support the statement that the soil is fertile. Missing citation was supplemented (line 102, no 49 of references in line 886).

10. Specify the assimilable forms.

Determination of assimilable forms of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium in soil extracted by means of acetic acid is a useful method of evaluating their abundance in soil under analysis.

11. Please list all the citations that have the similar test results to your current study instead of using the word 'many'.

In the section "Material and methods" the word "many" has been removed (line 107).

12. Specify the amount of K₂HPO₄, NH₄NO3, and KNO₃ Besides, specify the solution concentration of K₂HPO4, NH₄NO₃, and KNO₃ added. Because more than one source contain NO₃ and K.

Missing information was supplemented (line 112-123).

The K₂HPO₄

13. If abiotic stress is the treatment, please specify what are the levels of treatments? how many replications you had? What was the experimental design scheme?

The information on the stress factor, i.e. cadmium, was clarified. We had 12 replications in three growing seasons (4 replications in each growing seasons). New experimental scheme was added.

14. Will the difference between the substrates also considered treatments?

After 3 weeks and 6 weeks, plant, water and soil samples were taken from each container for analysis, mainly Cd concentration.

15. Please rephrase the sentence, it is quite confusing, you said you sampled them on two dates, but you listed 6 dates below. Please organize.            

Missing information was supplemented (line 166-167).

I term was taken on 17 July in 1^st growing season (gs), 16 July in 2^nd gs, 21 July in 3^rd gs; II term was taken on 7 August in 1^st gs, 6 August in 2^nd gs and 11 August in 3^rd gs.

16. Please define the abbreviation before using.

The abbreviation “growing season” (gs) was used (line 148)

17. What is the size of the container, how you place the seedlings? Random place thenm in the container?

The rosettes were placed random in each of 32 containers (2.5 dm³)(line 150-151).

18. Specify the date.

Missing information was supplemented in figure 1.

19. What are the concentrations?

Missing information was supplemented.

The PNK compounds were introduced into the water at two concentrations: one half object received randomly the low concentration (16 containers), and the other received the high concentration (16 containers). A low concentration (mg dm^-3) PO₄^3-: 0.54 (water purity class III), NO₃^-: 7.14 (II), NH₄⁺ : 0.22 (I), K⁺ : 4.56 (-); a high concentration (mg dm^-3) PO₄^3-: 2.73 (V), NO₃^-: 36.7 (IV); NH₄⁺ : 1.12 (III), K⁺ : 22.8 (-).

20. How you choose the half? Randomly? Please specify the experiment design.

The half containers was chosen randomly. The figure no 1 was completely changed. Missing information was supplemented in figure 1.

21. Please specify the concentration of solution and the contamination date.

After a week (8 days please found in figure 1), the water was contaminated with the cadmium salt solution (0.1 mg Cd^.dm^-3) in 16 containers differed in the level of PNK concentration.

22. Move this part forward. Please create a flow for the Materials and Methods. For example, 1) Experimental materials, 2) Experimental design (i.e., treatments, replications, sampling time). You can use a table to specify the level of all treatments; 3) Analytic methods; 4) Statistical analyses.            

In the section "Material and methods" the name and number of subsection has been redacted.

23. You are counting the shoots? Please specify.            

In the section "Material and methods" a definition of a rosette was given (one developed leaf and one not developed leaf in line 176).

24. You already specified the plants were dried in the previous sentence, what was the aim to dry the plant materials twice?

The redundant word (dried) was removed.

25. Here, you are weighing the dry plant biomass?

Yes.

26. Please double check the accuracy, the range seems big.

In the section "Material and methods" the numerical values have been corrected (line 180).

27. Specify the concentration of these two acids.

Missing information was added (line 182,196,200).

28. Specify what metal.

In the section "Material and methods" the word metal was replaced with "cadmium" (line 186).

29. Using XXX method.

In the section "Material and methods" the letter abbreviation has been corrected to FAAS (line 187).

30. Add the citation for each method stated here.

Missing citations was added (line 191-196, there are new references [56-65] in 900-919 lines).

Before the tests, the soil was subjected to the following tests: granulometric composition [56]; soil reaction (pH in 1M KCl) [57]; available phosphorus content [58], available potassium content  [59]; available magnesium content  [60]; organic carbon content [61; organic matter content [62]; total nitrogen content [63] and salinity [64]; in addition, the total metal content (lead, copper, zinc, manganese and iron) was determined after mineralization in a mixture of 69-70% nitric(V) and 65% chloric(VII) acids by FAAS[65].

31. for XXX h?

The samples of soil material taken from the containers were dried at a temperature of ap-prox. 60°C to a constant weight (line 198).

32. Vase or container? Please be consistent throughout the manuscript.

In the section "Material and methods" renamed "vases" to "containers" (line 197)

33. Please specify the parameters you measured and add citation for each method was used.

Missing information was added (line 202, no 55 in references).

55. Kisku, G.C.; Barman, S.C., Bhargava, S.K. Contamination of soil and plants with potentially toxic elements irrigated with mixed industrial effluent and its impact on the environment. Water Air and Soil Pollution 2000, 120, 121–137.
56. Add citation for each method stated here.

Missing information was added (line 209, no 66 in references).

66. Clesceri, L.S.; Greenberg, A.E.; Eaton, A.D. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, American Public Health Association, 20th ed., Washington DC, USA 1998.
67. Did you define what is control in the previous context?

In the section "Material and methods" information about the control object has been added.

36. Please specify how many levels you have for each factor. For factor III, how could you have both NPK concentration and time as one factor?

In the section "Material and methods" the information about "number of levels" was corrected and supplemented (line 251-254).

A 4-factor analysis of variance was used: factor I – factor contaminating the growth environment of the frogbit effluent (one level), factor II – exposure time of the frog effluent to water contamination with cadmium (two levels), factor III – concentration of PNK compounds introduced into the water (two levels), factor IV – growing season (three levels).

37. Please always define the abbreviation before using.

In the section "Material and methods" the abbreviation name was corrected.

38. Rephrase the sentence.

The sentence was rephrased (line 260-261).

The normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) were checked.

39. Move this to the beginning of the materials and methods for a better flow.     

The subsection "Meteorological conditions in three research seasons" has been moved to subsection 2.1. “Experimental materials”, section 2. “Materials and Methods” (line 128-145).

40. Specify the time range.

In the section "Material and methods" the content was supplemented in the form of a range of years (1991-2021 years) during which meteorological conditions were analysed (line 126-127).

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska  and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “An Analysis Of The Reaction Of Frogbit (Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae L.) To Cadmium Contamination 2 With A View To Its Use In The Phytoremediation Of Water Bodies” addresses an importance of Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae (frogbit) in the removal of cadmium from the contaminated ecosystems. The topic is relevant and well written. Hence, I recommend to accept the manuscript with minor revision as below

Minor comments:

1.      The author used abbreviation Cd for cadmium on multiple lines. The short forms, which are always used initially, should be expanded before being abbreviated.

2.      Cadmium and Cd frequently use in manuscript. The author should uses constantly either cadmium or Cd. 

3.      On page 2, line 53–55, the author wrote: “Little is known of frogbit, apart from its distribution and physicochemical environ-ment, although sone studies have assessed its phytoremediation potential regarding some 54 metals”. The word sone has to be changed to some in

4.      Correct the abbreviation for flame atomic absorption spectrometry in sentence “The metal content was determined by flame atomic absorption spectrometry (ASA)” on page no 4 line 154.

5.      The name of the same instrument not need to be repeated several times in manuscript. In this manuscript Solaar AA Series Spectrometer (Thermo Element) has been used several times with AAS.

6.      The author used several superscript letters in the equations on pages 4 and 5, but none of them were used to illustrate the equations.

7.      On page 5, line 2012 misspelt frogbit as frog.

8.      The author employs various superscript letters in tables and figures, but does not clarify their significance in any of them.

9.      The author did not elaborate on the abbreviation CCA in line 218 on page 5. 

10.  The author should review the work to fix the numerous grammatical errors.

11.  table 14 on page 17, the author omitted to write what >LOD indicates.

Author Response

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 3

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 3.

Reviewer #3 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

1. The author used abbreviation Cd for cadmium on multiple lines. The short forms, which are always used initially, should be expanded before being abbreviated. 2. Cadmium and Cd frequently use in manuscript. The author should uses constantly either cadmium or Cd. The full name of cadmium was used in the text of the manuscript, and its chemical symbol was introduced in the tables and figures.
2. On page 2, line 53–55, the author wrote: “Little is known of frogbit, apart from its distribution and hysicochemical environ-ment, although sone studies have assessed its phytoremediation potential regarding some 54 metals”. The word sone has to be changed to some in.

Corrected information „sone” to "in some” (line 71).

4. Correct the abbreviation for flame atomic absorption spectrometry in sentence “The metal content was determined by flame atomic absorption spectrometry (ASA)” on page no 4 line 154.

The abbreviation „AAS" was corrected to "FAAS" in all sites (line 186,195,201,206).

5. The name of the same instrument not need to be repeated several times in manuscript. In this manuscript Solaar AA Series Spectrometer (Thermo Element) has been used several times with AAS.

Removed repeating name of spectrometer used for chemical analysis of different types of samples from the experiment.

6. The author used several superscript letters in the equations on pages 4 and 5, but none of them were used to illustrate the equations.

The variables in the equations were checked and no letters were found in the superscript notation.

7. On page 5, line 2012 misspelt frogbit as frog.

Corrected the name of the tested plant (line 251).

8. The author employs various superscript letters in tables and figures, but does not clarify their significance in any of them.

Under all tables, and figures the meanings of the letters written in superscript are given (line 286,294,310,318,352,356,370,378,383,395,402,411).

9. The author did not elaborate on the abbreviation CCA in line 218 on page 5.

The abbreviation was corrected from "CCA" to "PNK" (line 256).

10. The author should review the work to fix the numerous grammatical errors.

The manuscript was translated by a native speaker.

11. In the table no 14 on page 17, the author omitted to write what > LOD indicates.

The abbreviation „LOD” was explained (line 667).

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska and co-authors

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 3

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 3.

Reviewer #3 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

1. The author used abbreviation Cd for cadmium on multiple lines. The short forms, which are always used initially, should be expanded before being abbreviated. 2. Cadmium and Cd frequently use in manuscript. The author should uses constantly either cadmium or Cd. The full name of cadmium was used in the text of the manuscript, and its chemical symbol was introduced in the tables and figures.
2. On page 2, line 53–55, the author wrote: “Little is known of frogbit, apart from its distribution and hysicochemical environ-ment, although sone studies have assessed its phytoremediation potential regarding some 54 metals”. The word sone has to be changed to some in.

Corrected information „sone” to "in some” (line 71).

4. Correct the abbreviation for flame atomic absorption spectrometry in sentence “The metal content was determined by flame atomic absorption spectrometry (ASA)” on page no 4 line 154.

The abbreviation „AAS" was corrected to "FAAS" in all sites (line 186,195,201,206).

5. The name of the same instrument not need to be repeated several times in manuscript. In this manuscript Solaar AA Series Spectrometer (Thermo Element) has been used several times with AAS.

Removed repeating name of spectrometer used for chemical analysis of different types of samples from the experiment.

6. The author used several superscript letters in the equations on pages 4 and 5, but none of them were used to illustrate the equations.

The variables in the equations were checked and no letters were found in the superscript notation.

7. On page 5, line 2012 misspelt frogbit as frog.

Corrected the name of the tested plant (line 251).

8. The author employs various superscript letters in tables and figures, but does not clarify their significance in any of them.

Under all tables, and figures the meanings of the letters written in superscript are given (line 286,294,310,318,352,356,370,378,383,395,402,411).

9. The author did not elaborate on the abbreviation CCA in line 218 on page 5.

The abbreviation was corrected from "CCA" to "PNK" (line 256).

10. The author should review the work to fix the numerous grammatical errors.

The manuscript was translated by a native speaker.

11. In the table no 14 on page 17, the author omitted to write what > LOD indicates.

The abbreviation „LOD” was explained (line 667).

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript titled in “An Analysis Of The Reaction Of Frogbit (Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae L.) To Cadmium Contamination With A View To Its Use In The Phytoremediation Of Water Bodies” investigates the effectiveness of cadmium uptake by frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) for the phytoremediation of aquatic ecosystems. This study examined Cd uptake by frogbit grown under conditions of low and high fertilizer dose and three Cd dose levels over three- and six- week exposure times. Generally speaking, it’s a meaningful way for water and wastewater treatment in the final stage of phytoremediation. Before considering this manuscript for publication, the authors should consider the following points in any revision as follows:

1.      On Page 1, Line 18, “PNK” in the abstract should be explained the full name as it first appears.

2.      On Page 3, Line 106, there should be a blank space between “3” and “gs”.

3.      The “a” “b” “c”… in the tables and figures have no explanation.

4.      Table 7 is not in the correct format.

5.      How’s the lowest limit of the residual Cd in water? And how many Frogbit are needed, according to the water volume and cycle of plant growth repeats?

6.      How about the cost, including the labor and the construction of optimal growth environment?

7.      How to deal with the plants containing Cd?

8.      In table 7 or 8, the table drawing is incomplete.

9.      On Page 2, Line 85, format problems: “Corg 9.6 g.kg-1”.

10.  On page 9 line 343, the authors mentioned “as confirmed by a tolerance index lower than one (Figure 5)”, but when the system was in Time II of high level, the tolerance index is 1.

11.  The authors should check the manuscript carefully to avoid the format mistakes. For example, unit (Line 85), punctuation (Line 123), blank space (tables), etc.

I will be happy to recommend for publication a revised version of the manuscript in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 5

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 5.

Reviewer #5 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

1. On Page 1, Line 18, “PNK” in the abstract should be explained the full name as it first appears.

The abbreviation “PNK”  was expanded to „ phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium” (line 19).

2. On Page 3, Line 106, there should be a blank space between “3” and “gs”.

The space was added between “3” and “gs” (line 147).

3. The “a” “b” “c”… in the tables and figures have no explanation.

Under all tables, the meanings of the letters written in superscript are given (line 286,294,310,318,352,356,370,378,383,395,402,411).

4. Table 7 is not in the correct format.
5. In table 7 or 8, the table drawing is incomplete.

Missing lines have been added in tables 7 and 8 (line 389,397).

5. How’s the lowest limit of the residual Cd in water?

Information about the lowest limit of the Cd in water has been added (line 208, 2.8 µg^.dm^-3 in table 1, line 280)

5 continued

And how many Frogbit are needed, according to the water volume and cycle of plant growth repeats?        

            Information about the number of frogbit and cycle of plant growth repeats has been added (line 704)

6. How about the cost, including the labor and the construction of optimal growth environment? 7. How to deal with the plants containing Cd?

            The information on disposal processes of cadmium-contaminated biomass has been added (line 698-718)

9. On Page 2, Line 85, format problems: “Corg 9.6 g.kg-1”.

Superscript has been inserted into the unit (line 103).

10. On page 9 line 343, the authors mentioned “as confirmed by a tolerance index lower than one (Figure 5)”, but when the system was in Time II of high level, the tolerance index is 1. The notation of numerical values in Fig.5 has been corrected.
11. The authors should check the manuscript carefully to avoid the format mistakes. For example, unit (Line 85), punctuation (Line 123), blank space (tables), etc.

The some minor comments have been corrected, for example, unit (Line 103), punctuation (Line 171), etc.

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

1. Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae L. in the title should be in italic style.

2. The introduction would be modified, authors should describe the method and result of the study in the introduction

3. The figures and talbes need to re-organized, or readers would be confused

Author Response

Szczecin 15.12.2022

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 4

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 4.

Reviewer #4 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

1. Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. in the title should be in italic style.            

In the title the name of the plant “Hydrocharis Morsus-Ranae L.” was written in italic style (line 1).

2. The introduction would be modified, authors should describe the method and result of the study in the introduction.    

Introduction was modified on method's information and result of the study (53-69 line). The description was developed on the basis of 8 new scientific articles (line 839-856 in References).

3. The figures and tables need to re-organized, or readers would be confused.

The numbers of figures and tables was re-organized.

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please make sure all the revisions are reflected in the manuscript rather than in the author's response letter to the reviewer. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Szczecin 21.12.2022 year

Małgorzata Gałczyńska, Renata Gamrat, Artur Ciemniak

West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin [Poland]

Response to the comments of the Reviewer # 2

We send corrected our paper, entitled “An analysis of the reaction of frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L.) to cadmium contamination with regard to its use in the phytoremediation of water bodies” (applsci 2089928). The paper was corrected according to all opinion of Reviewer # 2.

Reviewer #2 comments and detailed responses by Authors manuscript

Please make sure all the revisions are reflected in the manuscript rather than in the author's response letter to the reviewer.

The presence of all corrections that needed to be made to the manuscript was checked.

The notes from the manuscript:

1. Please specify the date of the growing season, i.e., from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX.

Suggested changes have been made (lines 90-92).

2. Delete the space in between.

The space has been removed per reviewer's comment #2 (line 102).

3. In the experiment design, a factor will contain at least two levels. Please double check.

Thank you very much for this comment. Of course, the correct answer is two levels (line 252).

Sincerely

Małgorzata Gałczyńska  and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf