Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Efficiency of Penicillium canescens in Dissipating PAH in Industrial Aged Contaminated Soil Microcosms and Its Impact on Soil Organic Matter and Ecotoxicity

Processes 2022, 10(3), 532; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10030532

by Etienne Veignie^*

and Catherine Rafin

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Processes 2022, 10(3), 532; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10030532

Submission received: 1 February 2022 / Revised: 3 March 2022 / Accepted: 4 March 2022 / Published: 7 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "Efficiency of Penicillium canescens in dissipating PAH in industrial aged contaminated soil microcosms and its impact on soil organic matter and ecotoxicity" is devoted to the very actual and high important research problem - the study of soil fungi's community on PAHs dissipation in technogenic contaminated soil.

There are some points should be corrected by authors: first of the introduction part should be improved. Provide please additional information about soil metagenome profiling during PAHs contamination and common fungi structure of microbial community (Gorovtsov et al., The effect of combined pollution by PAHs and heavy metals on the topsoil microbial communities, DOI 10.1007/s10653-021-01059-x). It will be highly appreciated if authors add additional information about bioremediation of PAHs contaminated soils, there are a lot of information in modern literature, for example Mazarji et al Biochar-assisted Fenton-like oxidation of benzo[a]pyrene-contaminated soil DOI 10.1007/s10653-020-00801-1;

After corrections, the article can be accepted for publication. This is a high-quality scientific article. All needed information about methods, reference material, experiment design and discussion section are perfect.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers

REVIEW 1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to reviewer1

General remarks

We thank the reviewers for their careful reading of this manuscript and their very useful comments. In accordance with the detailed comments of both reviewers, we have addressed each of their requests.

Introduction:

According to advises of the reviewer 1, as other reviewers, we deeply improved and completed the introduction, about mycoremediation, the interests of fungi, and added numerous references as required.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled " Efficiency of Penicillium canescens in dissipating PAH in industrial aged contaminated soil microcosms and its impact on soil organic matter and ecotoxicity ", by Veignie & Rafin describes the ability of the telluric saprotrophic fungus (Penicillium canescens) to dissipate the 16 PAH identified as priority pollutants by the US Environmental Protection Agency in industrial aged PAH-contaminated soil microcosms. Three comparative treatments for microcosms were followed: P. canescens bioaugmentation, biostimulation of endogenous microflora, and natural attenuation. The work is interesting and the article is reasonably written. The results are discussed explicitly. References are adequate.

However, some considerations must be carried out to this investigation:

Keywords are a tool to help indexers and search engines find relevant papers. They should not overlap the title, it is advisable to replace them.
Introduction: lines 40-41 the physical and chemical techniques of bioremediation are mentioned but are not described. It is advisable to add information at least on the most used methods.
In the objective of this work (lines 61-62) it has been indicated which telluric saprotrophic fungus was used. Based on which experimental tests was this choice made? Some reasons are given in the results section (lines 212-217), but it would be appropriate to indicate them also in the introduction.
In paragraph 2.3 it is necessary to mention “table 1” as it describes the experimental plan that was followed.
In Chemicals and materials (section 2.1) the formulas of the hydrated chemical compounds must be indicated correctly: number of moles of water per (⋅) mole of anhydrous solid es. NaH₂PO₄ ⋅ 2H₂O
Page 3, line 122, BuOH meaning has not been declared before this section, so include the meaning here.
Throughout the text it is necessary to correct "Kg" in "kg" and "hr" in "h". Always indicate the same unit of measurement: g/L or g L^-1. The latter is preferred.
In table 1 specify the acronym ES in the caption, while in table 2 there is a typing error (the parenthesis is missing and the text is not spaced).
In paragraph 3.2 the results should be presented in one or more graphs/tables. In this way the results are more easily identifiable by readers.
In the conclusions section it would be appropriate to refer to the economic aspects that a process such as the one described in this paper could involve.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers

General remarks

REVIEW 2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

However, some considerations must be carried out to this investigation:

Keywords are a tool to help indexers and search engines find relevant papers. They should not overlap the title, it is advisable to replace them.

The keywords were replace in order to complete the title

Introduction: lines 40-41 the physical and chemical techniques of bioremediation are mentioned but are not described. It is advisable to add information at least on the most used methods.
Introduction:

According to advises of the reviewer 2, as other reviewers, we deeply improved and completed the introduction, about mycoremediation, the interests of fungi, and added numerous references as required.

In the objective of this work (lines 61-62) it has been indicated which telluric saprotrophic fungus was used. Based on which experimental tests was this choice made? Some reasons are given in the results section (lines 212-217), but it would be appropriate to indicate them also in the introduction

We precised in the introduction the reasons why P. canescens has been chosen.

In paragraph 2.3 it is necessary to mention “table 1” as it describes the experimental plan that was followed.

We added the sentence: All treatments are summarised in Table 1.

In Chemicals and materials (section 2.1) the formulas of the hydrated chemical compounds must be indicated correctly: number of moles of water per (⋅) mole of anhydrous solid es. NaH₂PO₄⋅ 2H₂O

It was done.

Page 3, line 122, BuOH meaning has not been declared before this section, so include the meaning here.

It was done.

Throughout the text it is necessary to correct "Kg" in "kg" and "hr" in "h". Always indicate the same unit of measurement: g/L or g L^-1. The latter is preferred.

This was corrected in all the text.

In table 1 specify the acronym ES in the caption, while in table 2 there is a typing error (the parenthesis is missing and the text is not spaced).

It was done.

In paragraph 3.2 the results should be presented in one or more graphs/tables. In this way the results are more easily identifiable by readers.

All the results are presented in previous Figure 1 and Table 2. We precised in the text the figure and Table.

In the conclusions section it would be appropriate to refer to the economic aspects that a process such as the one described in this paper could involve.

We precise that fungal technology was half the cost of thermal desorption

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with an evaluation of the ability of Penicillium canescens to dissipate high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Although the proposed subject is interesting, the presented data have many limitations that should be taken into account prior publication.

Introduction

In the Introduction section the authors should describe why they use Penicillium canescens. Please describe some advantages of using fungi and their potential to dissipate PAH. Also, write the novelty of the work and the problem statement clearly. The introduction should be improved by adding the above mentioned information.

Materials and methods

Line 119 – please describe comprehensively how PAH levels were determined.
Table 2 – please write what the abbreviations of ns and s mean. In figure and table always give full form of abbreviation. In addition, for figure and table caption give all details.

Results and discussion

Detailed discussion about the novelty, significance of your research work and research gap relative to the literature should be added. Also add more details about studies and their results about using microorganisms to dissipate PAH

New section
Write the practical applications and future research perspectives and challenges by adding a new section before conclusions.

What are the limitations to use the proposed methodology ?

Conclusion

it should be chapter no 4 not 5
The conclusion is too short and should be extended by adding the authors own suggestions, critical point of view in this subject.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers

General remarks

REVIEW 3

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

In the Introduction section the authors should describe why they use Penicillium canescens. Please describe some advantages of using fungi and their potential to dissipate PAH. Also, write the novelty of the work and the problem statement clearly. The introduction should be improved by adding the above mentioned information.

According to advises of the reviewer 3, as other reviewers, we deeply improved and completed the introduction, about mycoremediation, the interests of fungi, and added numerous references as required. We hope that this introduction in its revision form will fit to the quality required.

Materials and methods

Line 119 – please describe comprehensively how PAH levels were determined.

It was precised.

Table 2 – please write what the abbreviations of ns and s mean. In figure and table always give full form of abbreviation. In addition, for figure and table caption give all details.

It was done in all figures and tables.

Results and discussion

Detailed discussion about the novelty, significance of your research work and research gap relative to the literature should be added. Also add more details about studies and their results about using microorganisms to dissipate PAH

New section
Write the practical applications and future research perspectives and challenges by adding a new section before conclusions.

What are the limitations to use the proposed methodology?

As required by the reviewer, we added a new section entitled 3.7. Limits and future research perspectives summarizing the significance of our research and also the limitations in comparison with the literature. We hope that this part in its revision form will fit to the quality required.

Conclusion

it should be chapter no 4 not 5
The conclusion is too short and should be extended by adding the authors own suggestions, critical point of view in this subject.

As we added a complementary section about Limits and future research, we would prefer to let the conclusion in its present concise form. We hope that the reviewer will support this choice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors after the review process, as a reviewer, I decided that this manuscript can be published in present form.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers

General remarks

We thank the reviewer for its appreciation concerning our research work.

REVIEW 4

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors after the review process, as a reviewer, I decided that this manuscript can be published in present form.

Submission Date

01 February 2022

Date of this review

13 Feb 2022 17:30:20

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Very good work, high novelty, of high interest, and well written.
One minor aspect has to be taken into account, data regarding the chemical structure of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons has to be stated as well as detailed data regarding the metabolism of Penicillium canescens

Beside the above stated, congratulation for (what I consider to be) an almost flawless work.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers

General remarks

REVIEW 5

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style


	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We added the Table 3 entitled ‘Selected physical and chemical properties of the 16 US EPA PAH’ in order to improve the understanding of the PCA (Figure 2) and the global understanding of our article. We thank the reviewer for this pertinent remark.

Concerning the PAH metabolism by P. canescens, to our knowledge, no data are available.

We hope that our article in its revision form will fit to the quality required.

Beside the above stated, congratulation for (what I consider to be) an almost flawless work.

Article Menu

Efficiency of Penicillium canescens in Dissipating PAH in Industrial Aged Contaminated Soil Microcosms and Its Impact on Soil Organic Matter and Ecotoxicity

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI