Review Reports - Recent Advances in Microbial-Assisted Remediation of Cadmium-Contaminated Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

As a Review article, it addressed an interesting topic from a scientific and practical point of view. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.

Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.

The article has an interesting approach, and the results are presented correctly, in relation to the purpose of the study.

The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.

The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.

Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.

The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.

Italic Font style for species name

e.g.

page 10, row 10

"Pseudomonas aeruginosa" instead of "Pseudomonas aeruginosa"

Several suggestions were made in the article.

Please check and correct, if necessary

Correct writing of some substances.

It is recommended to use the Equation Editor to write the ionic forms correctly

“HPO₄^²¯”

“PO₄^³¯”

“H₂PO₄^¯”

“Cd²⁺”

“CO₃^²¯”

“CdCO₃”

“CeO₂”

”CeO₂NPs” or ”CeO₂-NPs”

References

According to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Plants journal

“Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.”

e.g.

”Roy, A.; Sharma, A.; Yadav, S.; Jule, L.T.; Krishnaraj, R. Nanomaterials for remediation of environmental pollutants. Bioinorg. Chem. Appl. 2021, 2021, 1764647. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1764647”

Instead of

”Roy, A., Sharma, A., Yadav, S., Jule, L.T. and Krishnaraj, R., 2021. Nanomaterials for remediation of environmental pollutants. Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications, 2021. 1764647. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1764647”

It is recommended to check the entire References chapter, and correct where necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

30 April 2023

Dr. Ms. Irene Xia
Section Managing Editor, Plants.

Manuscript ID: plants-2316934

Recent advances in microbial assisted remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil

Response to Editor

Dear Dr. Irene Xia,

We are grateful to you and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Their expert opinion has enabled us to strengthen the weaknesses and significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We are submitting the revised version of our manuscript after intensive modifications. In this version, we strictly observed the comments of reviewers. The details of improvements incorporated in the manuscript according to the comments received are given in the point-by-point responses below. Changes have been highlighted (in red color) in the revised version of the manuscript.

I do hope that the revision will be acceptable for publication in “Plants (MDPI)” and look forward to hearing from you in due course of time.

Sincerely

Dr. Babar Shahzad,

Corresponding author

E-mail: babar.shahzad@utas.edu.au

REVIEWER 1

As a Review article, it addressed an interesting topic from a scientific and practical point of view. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted. Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives. The article has an interesting approach, and the results are presented correctly, in relation to the purpose of the study. The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field. The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.

Response: Many thanks for your supporting comments. We have improved it further according to the respected reviewer's suggestion.

Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.

The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.

ItalicFont style for species name

e.g.

page 10, row 10

"Pseudomonas aeruginosa" instead of "Pseudomonas aeruginosa"

Several suggestions were made in the article.

Please check and correct, if necessary

Response: Thanks, we have thoroughly checked and corrected according to suggestion.

Correct writing of some substances.

It is recommended to use the Equation Editor to write the ionic forms correctly

“HPO₄^²¯”

“PO₄^³¯”

“H₂PO₄^¯”

“Cd²⁺”

“CO₃^²¯”

“CdCO₃”

“CeO₂”

”CeO₂NPs” or ”CeO₂-NPs”

Response: Corrected as per suggestion in the whole manuscript carefully.

References

According to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Plants journal

“Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.”

e.g.

Instead of

It is recommended to check the entire References chapter, and correct where necessary.

Response: Thanks, the reference section is improved and formatted according to ‘Plants’ format,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments Plants-2316934

The objective of the manuscript 'Recent advances in microbial assisted remediation of Cd-contaminated soil' was not stated. This Review covers the bioremediation of soils contaminated with Cd in various new ways, but an objective and hypothesis must be added.

The authors explain the reason for writing this manuscript, but the reasoning is severely flawed.

The Review is full of hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

The authors present a very biased and uninformed view.

The statements are excessively broad, and there are too many exceptions.

The writing needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker. There are many grammatical errors, especially concerning plurals in subject-verb agreement.

I have detected a strong bias since the first paragraph of the manuscript. Typographic mistakes in the manuscript and uncorrected use of punctuation marks.

The citations must be reviewed. There are some inconsistencies. Besides, the References section must be double-checked; it has several inconsistencies.

Tables' and Figures' captions and headings must be self-explanatory. Do not forget to indicate the meaning of each acronym, and do not duplicate legends. Figures are not relevant and do not highlight any critical information.

Please read again and carefully throughout the manuscript. It has typography mistakes, inadequate use of capital letters, and some missing blanks. Use subscripts or superscripts appropriately, where appropriate, throughout the document.

Please do not use more than three citations for each statement. When you use more than three citations in a statement, please only retain the newest three.

The manuscript is not a systematic review regarding the bioremediation of soils contaminated with Cd in various new ways. Which ‘new ways’ are authors talking about? The manuscript indicates but does not correctly discuss typical and well-studied microbial-assisted remediation of Cd-contaminated soil. Several sections and subsections are not related to the title. The objective and hypothesis could help to understand the Review's general idea, but these are missing. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Author Response

30 April 2023

Dr. Ms. Irene Xia
Section Managing Editor, Plants.

Manuscript ID: plants-2316934

Recent advances in microbial assisted remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil

Response to Editor

Dear Dr. Irene Xia,

I do hope that the revision will be acceptable for publication in “Plants (MDPI)” and look forward to hearing from you in due course of time.

Sincerely

Dr. Babar Shahzad,

Corresponding author

E-mail: babar.shahzad@utas.edu.au

REVIEWER 2

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions; the objectives of the review have been included, and the manuscript also mentions why there is a need for this review. Please check the revised manuscript.

The authors explain the reason for writing this manuscript, but the reasoning is severely flawed.

Response: Respected reviewer thank you for bringing up this important question. As a result, we have revised and improved the rationale for writing this review.

The Review is full of hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion; we have concise our manuscript where needed. Furthermore, all the data presented in the review are highlighted with facts and figures with appropriate references in the appropriate place.

The authors present a very biased and uninformed view.

Response: Well, the authors of this study, most of them are working on the remediation of Cd using organic amendments. They tried their level best to inform the recent updates about the bioremediation of Cd. If the reviewer still thinks that some parts of this manuscript are based on. Then please highlight those sections; we will try our best again to improve them accordingly. Thanks.

The statements are excessively broad, and there are too many exceptions.

Response: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and made improvements based on the valuable suggestions provided by the respected reviewer.

The writing needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker. There are many grammatical errors, especially concerning plurals in subject-verb agreement.

Response: Thank you so much; we have significantly improved the manuscript's writing through extensive revisions and have taken great care to remove any possible grammatical errors. Furthermore, the authors used Grammarly software (paid version) to improve the language of this manuscript.

I have detected a strong bias since the first paragraph of the manuscript. Typographic mistakes in the manuscript and uncorrected use of punctuation marks.

Response: In the first paragraph, the authors highlighted the impact of heavy metals on the ecosystem and human health. In which authors cited three references (maybe the reviewer considered them as self-citation of various coauthors' studies). But manuscripts related to heavy metals and potential bio-remediation technologies to mitigate heavy metal stress were highlighted in these manuscripts. We still believe that the authors do not bias this review. The necessary authors' studies are only mentioned at appropriate places in this study. Furthermore, if the reviewer still believes this review is biased, please highlight them. We will try our level best to address them.

The citations must be reviewed. There are some inconsistencies. Besides, the References section must be double-checked; it has several inconsistencies.

Response: The citations in the manuscript have been thoroughly cross-checked, and we have tried to remove any inconsistencies.

Response: Thanks for your kind response; we have improved the captions of tables and figures. Please check this revised manuscript.

Response: We have thoroughly read the manuscript and rectified grammatical and typographical errors. We have also checked and corrected any inadequate use of capital letters and ensured that subscripts and superscripts are used where necessary.

Please do not use more than three citations for each statement. When you use more than three citations in a statement, please only retain the newest three.

Response: Thank you so much, we have followed these instructions, and now there are a maximum of two citations in each statement in the manuscript, and they are the most recent ones.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions. In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors highlight the novelty of this manuscript in the last paragraph of the introduction section. A hypothesis was not added in this review article, as generally, the hypothesis was made in a research article introduction section. Based on the results section, we accept or reject that hypothesis. But here, the story was the opposite. 1st reviewer of this manuscript has already accepted this manuscript with minor revisions. Still, if you have some suggestions to improve the title of this manuscript and some other sections, we will try our best to address them again. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments Plants-2316934_R1

The objective of the manuscript ‘Recent advances in microbial assisted remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil ' was added, but the hypothesis is still missing.

Table and Figure captions and headings must be self-explanatory.

Table 3 does not have a title.

There are several mistakes or incomplete scientific names.

Various definitions or general information has been inadequately described or stated.

What is bioremediation? It has to be stated clearly at the- onset of the manuscript, along with ‘heavy metal’

Read again and carefully throughout the manuscript. It has typography mistakes, inadequate capital letter use, and some missing blanks.

This manuscript has several weaknesses regarding the methodology, which is not described. It is a fundamental section, but it is missing. How were manuscripts selected and analyzed?

The manuscript could be interesting, but there is a lot of information and the discussion is inadequate. Therefore, there is no scientific contribution.

What about the other nano-sized materials different from nanoparticles that are similar or more efficient to nanoparticles?

The manuscript has a lot of information and citations. However, the ideas were not completed and undiscussed.

Therefore, there is no scientific contribution. According to the above, I can not recommend the acceptance and publication in Plants, i.e., I recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Their expert opinion has enabled us to strengthen the weaknesses and significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We are submitting the revised version of our manuscript after intensive modifications. In this version, we strictly observed the comments of reviewers. The details of improvements incorporated in the manuscript according to the comments received are given in the point-by-point responses below. Changes have been highlighted (in red color) in the revised version of the manuscript. I do hope that the revision will be acceptable for publication in “Plants (MDPI)” and look forward to hearing from you in due course of time.

The objective of the manuscript ‘Recent advances in microbial assisted remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil ' was added, but the hypothesis is still missing.
Response: Dear respected reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. We have duly included the objectives of the manuscript 'Recent advances in microbial-assisted remediation of cadmium-contaminated soil.' As a review article, the aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the recent advancements in this field rather than testing a specific hypothesis. We believe this approach will better serve the readers by synthesizing existing knowledge and highlighting the key findings. Thank you for your consideration.

Table and Figure captions and headings must be self-explanatory.
Response: We have reviewed the captions of tables and figures, and improved where needed.

Table 3 does not have a title.
Response: Thanks, title of table 3 has been added.

There are several mistakes or incomplete scientific names.
Response: We have thoroughly rechecked the scientific names and corrected where needed.

An incorrect definition of ‘heavy metal’ is stated (lines 52-53). There are more than 20 heavy metals; what about the others? Some heavy metals are essential at low concentrations. What about that?
Response: This is the general definition of heavy metals. The information taken from these sources

Fergusson JE, editor. The Heavy Elements: Chemistry, Environmental Impact and Health Effects. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1990.
Tchounwou, P.B., Yedjou, C.G., Patlolla, A.K. and Sutton, D.J., 2012. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. Molecular, clinical and environmental toxicology: volume 3: environmental toxicology, pp.133-164.

Various definitions or general information has been inadequately described or stated.
Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and improved where needed.

What is bioremediation? It has to be stated clearly at the- onset of the manuscript, along with ‘heavy metal’
Response: In introduction section of review, it has been defined (Bioremediation is an environment-friendly technique that utilizes plants and microorganisms (such as fungi, bacteria, and algae) to aid in the restoration of contaminated soil to its original state. Biological techniques like biosorption and bioaccumulation offer an advantage in removing heavy metals from polluted resources).

Read again and carefully throughout the manuscript. It has typography mistakes, inadequate capital letter use, and some missing blanks.
Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript, addressing all typography mistakes, improving capital letter usage, and ensuring all necessary blanks are appropriately filled. The revised version now meets the required standards for clarity and accuracy.

A review is not a bunch of sentences with citations. The idea of a review is to give a significant contribution based on the literature discussion. But, a bunch of information without a proper discussion and a scientific contribution should not be published.
Response: Dear esteemed reviewer, we deeply appreciate your insightful feedback. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have thoroughly revised the review to ensure a comprehensive literature discussion and a meaningful scientific contribution. Our revised manuscript now contains only essential information, accompanied by relevant citations, while eliminating any inappropriate references. We believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of the review. Thank you for guiding us in refining our work.

This manuscript has several weaknesses regarding the methodology, which is not described. It is a fundamental section, but it is missing. How were manuscripts selected and analyzed?
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed the concerns raised by adding a comprehensive methodology section in the manuscript, detailing the criteria for manuscript selection and the analytical approach used. We believe these additions have significantly strengthened the study's foundation and robustness.

The manuscript could be interesting, but there is a lot of information and the discussion is inadequate. Therefore, there is no scientific contribution.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback and have diligently addressed their concerns throughout multiple rounds of revision, actively involving all authors. The manuscript has now been refined, focusing solely on essential and pertinent content, thereby ensuring a substantial scientific contribution and meeting the criteria for publication.

What about the other nano-sized materials different from nanoparticles that are similar or more efficient to nanoparticles?
Response: While the terminology may be similar, nano-sized materials beyond nanoparticles have distinct characteristics and potential efficiencies. In the revised manuscript, we have addressed this aspect to provide a comprehensive comparison and discussion of these alternative materials.

The manuscript has a lot of information and citations. However, the ideas were not completed and undiscussed.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance the completeness of our ideas and ensure thorough discussions throughout. While maintaining the essential information, we have provided a more comprehensive analysis of the topic to address any potential gaps in the previous version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf