Mineral Composition of Chelidonium majus L. and Soils in Urban Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript “Mineral composition of Chelidonium majus L. and soils in urban areas”. This paper is technically sound. However, manuscript has structural, grammatical, and technical issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

1. The abstract states the concentration ranges of specific elements without indicating their significance and recommendations.
2. Genus species names should be written in italics. Please address as such through the content including the title.
3. The study's research gap and innovative aspects are not clearly defined.
4. Line 115, anthropogenic soil? I think it should be anthropogenic impacted soil.
5. Please describe sampling method used.
6. Line 120, provide a month and year which you collected samples.
7. Is it Majus or Chelidonim majus. Please check consistency.
8. The information in section 2.2 is poorly connected.
9. How did you determine analytical figures of merit to ensure that the method used is fit for the purpose.
10. Rewrite line 141 – 142.
11. Authors never mentioned anything about pollution index or environmental indicators until section 2.3. I suggest that they include the importance of assessing pollution index parameters in the introduction section. In actual fact, paragraph 141 – 149 should be moved to introduction. Only include methodological approach for calculations of Igeo, CF, EF, BAF and TF under section 2.3.
12. I suggest that authors combine results and discussion as section 3 and integrate more comparisons with global studies when analyzing Tables of results. As it stands, it is impossible to comprehend discussion of your results.
13. What do asterisks signify in all Tables?
14. The determination of reference values should be detailed in the materials and methods section. Please indicate if recoveries obtained are in agreement with the acceptable standard guidelines for analytical method validations.
15. Please verify that all abbreviations introduced for the first time are fully defined, with subsequent proper abbreviation.
16. In your conclusion, please include most significant findings, their relevance to public health and environmental implications and specific recommendations for future research.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review of our article. The constructive comments have made the article better than its previous version. A detailed response to the review is attached.
A native speaker has also read the text, and I hope it is clearer and more precise. We hope that the responses will satisfy the reviewers. Thank you again for an excellent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work measured the elements content of Chelidonium majus and the abundance of various elements in the soil and their relationships, and the data were relatively sufficient. This work mainly involves analytical measurements, but the analytical methods and testing procedures are not included in the article. And, it should be supplemented or placed in the SI.

In particular, the accuracy and precision of the analytical methods should be presented, including whether the recovery method is used to determine the accuracy of the analytical methods and procedures.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review of our article. The constructive comments have made the article better than its previous version. A detailed response to the review is attached.
A native speaker has also read the text, and I hope it is clearer and more precise. We hope that the responses will satisfy the reviewers. Thank you again for an excellent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an interesting study, taking into account three key environmental indicators (I-geo, EF, CF), which allows for a multidimensional assessment of the concentration and mobility of elements in the soil-plant system. Correlations between various elements, both in soil and in plant tissues, are presented in great detail. Strong correlations, such as Zr with Mo, Co, U, and others, are valuable for assessing the dynamics of element exchange in the soil-plant system. The manuscript contains many valuable pieces of information, but its quality could be improved by adding ecological, chemical, and engineering information. Incorporating the suggested enhancements would make the work more comprehensive and useful for scientists across multiple fields.

1. The text focuses on the chemical aspects of Chelidonium majus (C. majus), but lacks references to the plant's habitat preferences, such as moisture levels or soil type.
2. Details of the wet mineralization process in aqua regia, such as duration or control parameters, need clarification.
3. Although the text indicates anthropogenic transformations of soils, it does not explain which industrial processes and substances may be responsible for these changes.
4. Lines 44-45: The authors mention the plant's applications but lack literature references.
5. Line 62: Please specify which toxic compounds the authors had in mind.
6. The methodology section lacks information about the equipment used (e.g., model, manufacturer).
7. Please specify which statistical software was used.
8. Verify numerical values presented in the manuscript (e.g., should it be 53.100 mg/kg or 53,100 mg/kg?).
9. In Table 1, the concentration unit is %, but in the text, the authors refer to these values in mg/kg.
10. Lines 241-242: Information on the I-geo indicator was already presented earlier in the manuscript.
11. Lines 336-338: Lack of specific numerical data. Please expand the discussion, as the current form is too general.
12. Lines 379-380: This information does not belong in the discussion section.
13. Lines 325-326: What does it mean that the elemental composition was not thoroughly studied, given that the authors refer to results from other researchers?
14. Lines 434-435: Lack of specific values. Please conduct a discussion of the results.
15. Enrich the work with more references (numerical values) to other medicinal plants, which would enable better placement of majus in the context of phytochemistry.
16. Comparing majus to other medicinal plants in terms of their chemical composition and tolerance to environmental stress would enhance the text.
17. Exploring interactions of majus with other plants, especially nitrophilous species that may influence its growth and chemical composition, would improve the manuscript.
18. The discussion lacks reference to standards and threshold values for element contents in medicinal plants or soil, making it difficult to assess whether the observed concentrations are beneficial or potentially harmful.
19. The chemical form of elements in soil and plants (e.g., ionic forms, organic complexes) is not specified, which is crucial for assessing their bioavailability.
20. Including a description of mechanisms of transport and translocation of elements within the plant (e.g., calcium movement through the apoplast and symplast) could enrich the results. Consider this.
21. In the discussion section, it should be explained why specific elements (e.g., Sr or Sb) show higher correlations in soil than in plants, considering specific soil properties such as pH or the presence of organic matter.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your detailed review of our article. The constructive comments have made the article better than its previous version. A detailed response to the review is attached.
A native speaker has also read the text, and I hope it is clearer and more precise. We hope that the responses will satisfy the reviewers. Thank you again for an excellent review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf