Shrimp-Waste-Derived Biochar Induces Metal Toxicity Tolerance of Wastewater-Irrigated Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)
, Kamal A. M. Abo-Elyousr 1, Omer H. M. Ibrahim 1, Nouf Owdah Alshareef 2 and Mamdouh A. Eissa 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title
The title is not clear. The title of the manuscript should include a set of measured traits.
Abstract
- Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
- Line 14-15: The sentence is not clear.
- Line 15-17: The sentence is not clear, too. Please subject the manuscript to review made by English Native speaker.
- Line 26: How many percent?
- Please add the values.
Introduction
- This section is good. Please add more details about quinoa cultivation area and also productivity.
- Highlight the novelty in this section.
Materials and methods
This section should be revised deeply.
- Line 123-127: Please add the soil physical and chemical properties in one table.
-The treatments should be stated precisely.
- The analysis method is not clear.
- The MDA and antioxidant enzymes methods should be added in this section, briefly.
Results
This section is good. Please add the figure 6 in introduction or discussion section.
Conclusion
- This section is repetitive and should be rewritten.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
Author Response
Review Report (Reviewer 1)
The authors’ response: Thanks very much for your efforts and useful comments about our manuscript. We are very grateful and appreciate your golden time and good comments which helped us to make the paper more quality and accurate.
Point 1. Title: The title is not clear. The title of the manuscript should include a set of measured traits.
The authors’ response: We changed the title to be “Shrimp waste-derived biochar induces metal toxicity tolerance of wastewater-irrigated quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)”
Point 2. Abstract - Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
The authors’ response: We improved the whole Abstract to cover your valuable suggestion.
Point 3.- Line 14-15: The sentence is not clear.
The authors’ response: We improved the sentence to be “The scarcity of high-quality water resources may lead to the use of lower quality water for plant production. Quinoa plants have great potential for human nutrition, but poor water quality, such as metal contamination of wastewater, affects the quality of the seeds”
Point 4.- Line 15-17: The sentence is not clear, too. Please subject the manuscript to review made by English Native speaker.
The authors’ response: We changed the sentence to be clearer.
Point 5. - Line 26: How many percent? - Please add the values.
The authors’ response: We corrected the sentence and added the value. “SWB2 significantly reduced the concentrations of Cd and Pb in quinoa leaves by 30 and 29% compared to C. Cd and Pb concentrations in the seeds were safe and below the maximum allowable limits when the soil amended with SWB2”
Point 6. Introduction- This section is good. Please add more details about quinoa cultivation area and also productivity.
The authors’ response: Thanks too much for your kindly words. We added some details about quinoa production and cultivated area. We added these information about the cultivated area and world production: “Quinoa plants have been cultivated in more than 120 countries; the top producers are Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, the United States, Columbia, Chile, and Brazil [13]. Bolivia and Ecuador are the two largest quinoa producers in the world with a cultivated area of 172,000 hectrares [13]”.
Point 7. - Highlight the novelty in this section.
The authors’ response: We improved and highlighted the novelty of the study. “The soils present in arid regions have low organic matter content, and the risk of heavy metal absorption by plants increases when polluted water is used for irrigation [5]. Our hypothesis is that when quinoa plants are irrigated with metal-contaminated water, the addition of biochar derived from shrimp waste and rich in organic matter and calcium, will lessen the availability and uptake of toxic elements. Therefore, this study aims to explore and understand the role of biochar created from shrimp waste in reducing the transfer of toxic elements from wastewater to quinoa plants grown in arid degraded soils poor in their content of organic matter”.
Materials and methods
Point 1. This section should be revised deeply.
The authors’ response: We improved the whole MM section and added a lot of details.
Point 2. -Line 123-127: Please add the soil physical and chemical properties in one table.
The authors’ response: We converted the soil analysis to a Table
Table 1 Basic soil characteristics of the soil under study
|
Properties (Units) |
Value |
|
Texture |
Sandy |
|
pH (1:2) |
7.80±0.05 |
|
Organic Carbon (g kg−1) |
5.2±0.2 |
|
Available N (mg kg−1) |
15±1 |
|
Available P (Olsen) (mg kg−1) |
4.5±0.1 |
|
Available K (mg kg−1) |
117±10 |
|
Available Fe (mg kg−1) |
5.2±0.3 |
|
Available Mn (mg kg−1) |
3.5±0.2 |
|
Available Zn (mg kg−1) |
1.2±0.1 |
|
Available Cu (mg kg−1) |
0.55±0.08 |
|
Available Cd (mg kg−1) |
not detected |
|
Available Pb (mg kg−1) |
not detected |
Point 3. -The treatments should be stated precisely.
The authors’ response: We added the details of the treatments: “Shrimp waste-derived biochar (SWB) was mixed with the studied soil and filled in the pots before the cultivation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa cv. Utosaya Q37). SWB rates were 0, 1, and 2% (w/w) (C, SWB1, and SWB2, respectively)”.
Point 4. - The analysis method is not clear.
The authors’ response: We improved the whole MM section and added a lot of details.
Point 5. - The MDA and antioxidant enzymes methods should be added in this section, briefly.
The authors’ response: We added a briefly details for all the chemical analysis.
Point 6. Results
This section is good. Please add the figure 6 in introduction or discussion section.
The authors’ response: Thanks Sir, we moved Figure to the discussion.
Point 7. Conclusion
- This section is repetitive and should be rewritten.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
The authors’ response: We improved the conclusion section
Reviewer 2 Report
Review remarks of manuscript (agriculture-1945157): Biochar improved the antioxidant system and nutrient uptake of metal-stressed quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) plants. The manuscript is poorly written, large number sentences are superficially presented, and not correct. Major internal review for quality presentation is required for further processing. Moreover, several works are available on this topic, even in more details (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42729-022-01005-5; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050841). Authors should clearly add novelty of present work. Following will be helpful.
1. Abstract is too general, not informative, authors should be revised and present information concisely. Line 18-20, unclear and big sentence, revise it.
2. Sub-chapter: Plant analysis line 152; what author means?
3. Line 200. Authors didn’t pay attention to correct writing
4. The condition under which the plants were grown (light intensity, humidity, temperature, type of soil).
5. Line 74-78, not very clear, revise it; Line 295-296, check; Line 307-308, reference required; Line 319-321, explain the mechanism through which reduction in photosynthetic pigments occurs under metal stress.
6. Discussion shall be improved with the addition of key finding of this study.
7. In conclusion authors claim; SWB could help to immobilization of heavy metals in wastewater and reducing their transfer to quinoa grown in the degraded soil that suffers from low organic 375 matter; not no evidence was added in results section.
8. Authors just added SEM image but in mark on image and no explanation what authors want to show.
Author Response
Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Point 1. The manuscript is poorly written, large number sentences are superficially presented, and not correct. Major internal review for quality presentation is required for further processing. Moreover, several works are available on this topic, even in more details (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42729-022-01005-5; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050841). Authors should clearly add novelty of present work. Following will be helpful.
The authors’ response: We are very grateful and appreciate your golden time and good comments which helped us to make the paper more quality and accurate. We improved the paper quality and wish this edition is suitable for the publication. We coarcted the MS according your valuable comments. Regarding the novelty, these are the two papers you mentioned:
- Biochar derived from cow bones and corn stalks reduced the release of Cd and Pb and the human health risk index of quinoa grown in contaminated soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-01005-5
- The Effect of Granular Activated Carbon and Biochar on the Availability of Cu and Zn to Hordeum sativum Distichum in Contaminated Soil.
The research papers you referred to are completely different from the current paper. The characteristics of the biochar are determined based on the temperature at which it is manufactured, and the raw material has a direct impact on the characteristics of the biochar. In the current experiment, we made biochar from shrimp waste and used it with quinoa plant irrigated with water contaminated with many elements, which did not happen in the previous studies.
Point 2. Abstract is too general, not informative, authors should be revised and present information concisely. Line 18-20, unclear and big sentence, revise it.
The authors’ response: We changed the sentences to be clear and simple. The new sentences are: “This study aims to investigate the effects of shrimp waste-derived biochar (SWB) on the uptake of toxic metals from wastewater by quinoa plants. Additionally, the study investigates how quinoa plants' antioxidant defenses respond to wastewater and SWB treatments”
Point 3. Sub-chapter: Plant analysis line 152; what author means?
The authors’ response: Plant analysis contains the determination of antioxidant enzymes (ascorbate peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase) by the procedure described in Sheyhakinia et al. [38]. We included some details to this part.
Point 4. Line 200. Authors didn’t pay attention to correct writing.
The authors’ response: this is the sentence in line 200 in the previous edition: “the application of SWB significantly enhanced the synthesis of photosynthetic pigments (Fig.2 A, B, C, and D)”. First please accept our apologize for the mistake and we corrected it to be: “the application of SWB significantly enhanced the synthesis of photosynthetic pigments (Fig.2 A and B”
Point 5. The condition under which the plants were grown (light intensity, humidity, temperature, type of soil).
The authors’ response: We added the details of climate and soil (Soil type in Table 2): “The experiment was conducted in open climatic conditions (solar radiation of 25-30 MJ/m2/day, relative humidity of 50-60%, and temperature of 20-25 and 10-14 °C, respectively for Tmax and Tmin)”.
Point 6. A. Line 74-78, not very clear, revise it;
The authors’ response: these are the sentences in line 74-78 in the previous edition: “These functional groups provide biochar with specific chemical characteristics in immobilization of toxic metals and improving soil fertility [17, 20]. The physical and chemical properties of biochar make it an effective tool in decreasing the mobility of heavy metals in soil and thus reducing their absorption by plant roots [17, 21].
We changed the paragraph to be: “Heavy metals are immobilized in the soil solution by the functional groups of biochar, which serve as a bridge between metal and biochar [17, 20]. The outstanding physical and physical properties of biochar, such as large surface area and high cation exchange capacity, enable it to decrease the mobility of heavy metals in soil and thus reducing their absorption by plant roots [17, 21]”
Point 6. B. Line 295-296, check;
The authors’ response: these are the sentences in line 295-296 in the previous edition:” The toxicity level of Fe and Mn in the plant tissues ranges from 400 to 1000 mg kg−1, while the toxicity level of Zn is 100 to 400 mg kg−1, based on dry weight [40]. On the other hand, the wastewater increased the concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Pb in the leaves of quinoa plants above the toxicity levels”.
We changed the sentences to be:” Based on dry weight, the toxicity levels of Fe and Mn in plant tissues range from 400 to 1000 mg kg−1, while Zn is between 100 and 400 mg kg−1 [40]. The use of wastewater in the irrigation of quinoa plants increased the concentrations of Cu, Cd, and Pb in the leaves of quinoa plants above the toxicity levels.
Point 6. C. Line 307-308, reference required;
The authors’ response: this is the sentence in line 307-308 in the previous edition: The use of wastewater in the irrigation of quinoa plants caused a significant reduction in the concentrations of photosynthetic pigments due to the toxicity of Cd, Pb, and Cu in the plant leaves. We added the reference after the sentence.
Point 6. D. Line 319-321, explain the mechanism through which reduction in photosynthetic pigments occurs under metal stress.
The authors’ response: We added this part about the mechanism of reduction in photosynthetic pigments as well as the effect of biochar in mitigating the negative effects: ”The use of wastewater in the irrigation of quinoa plants caused a significant reduction in the concentrations of photosynthetic pigments due to the toxicity of Cd, Pb, and Cu in the plant leaves [20, 21]. Increasing the levels of toxic metals in the leaf tissue may lead to a distortion in the chloroplast, which causes a reduction in the synthesis of photosynthetic pigments [20, 21, 42]. SWB mitigated the negative effects of wastewater and significantly increased the photosynthetic pigment levels in quinoa plants. The addition of SWB has a vital role in enhancing the physiological attributes and improving the nutrient supply to quinoa plants [43, 44]. The biochar of shrimp waste significantly increased the synthesis of chlorophyll by raising the photosynthetic activity under metal toxicity [45; 46].
Point 7. Discussion shall be improved with the addition of key finding of this study.
The authors’ response: We improved the whole discussion.
Point 8. In conclusion authors claim; SWB could help to immobilization of heavy metals in wastewater and reducing their transfer to quinoa grown in the degraded soil that suffers from low organic 375 matter; not no evidence was added in results section.
The authors’ response: In the current study, we determined the soil organic matter before and after cultivation, the availability of heavy metals in soil before and after cultivation, and we measured the metals in the plant seeds and leaves. Then we are able to say that. Reducing the availability of heavy metals in soil means that biochar immobilized metals in soils. Low levels of metals in plant seeds and leaves means low transferer of metal to the plant.
Point 9. Authors just added SEM image but in mark on image and no explanation what authors want to show.
The authors’ response: We added some description for the photo. “The electron micrograph of the biochar sample shows that it has a sheet structure and is characterized by a large specific surface area”.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper can be accepted
Author Response
Point 1. The paper can be accepted.
The authors’ response: Thanks again for your efforts and useful comments. We improved the English for the whole MS.
