Next Article in Journal
Dunaliella viridis TAV01: A Halotolerant, Protein-Rich Microalga from the Algarve Coast
Next Article in Special Issue
Microbial-Based Heavy Metal Bioremediation: Toxicity and Eco-Friendly Approaches to Heavy Metal Decontamination
Previous Article in Journal
Enhanced Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Removal by Mixed Consortium: Performance and Adaptability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study of Heavy Metals in Selected Medicinal Plants and Extracts, Using Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Hatchability and Survival of Lamproglena clariae Fryer, 1956 Exposed to Increasing Concentrations of Aqueous Aluminium

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(4), 2145; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042145
by Marilie Pretorius and Annemariè Avenant-Oldewage *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(4), 2145; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042145
Submission received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 31 January 2023 / Accepted: 4 February 2023 / Published: 7 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heavy Metal Toxicity: Environmental and Human Health Risk Assessment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is important, because shows Al infuence in microorganism. This is a very problem for aquatic life. 

The desing is good, but the references must be improved.

Please add recent bibliography.

What is the limit of quantification of the range using ICP-MS. Please, added this information.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. We addressed all the comments and responded on your document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This research have studies the toxic effects of heavy metal aluminum on C gariepinus, including hatchability and survival. Its experimental scheme was designed reasonably, and achieved some interesting results. The most attractive results is that the mortalities (NI) percentage of 60 µg/L was 17% which was far less than 5 and 30 µg/L. Even this result was the same as that of the control group. Could the author explain this result in more detail? It was not found in the discussion part.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your review. We addressed all your comments and responded on the review report as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows an important analysis using a bioindicator. But the references must be improved. Please, add recent references in all the paper.

Author Response

Minor spelling check required- We attended to the spelling and checked that we use American "English" using Grammarly. See marked up text attached.

References must be improved. We read extensively before the study and could not find more relevant literature. However, after the first review, we used all the literature search engines available at our institution again. We inserted those references in our manuscript. We would, therefore, appreciate it if the reviewer is aware of relevant literature that has been excluded and if he/she shares the paper/s with us as we have not been able to locate it with the means available to us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop