Standardized Design Metrics and Policy Integration for Phytoremediation Systems in Water Contaminant Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the comments regarding Manuscript ID: standards-3700866.

1. References might be appropriate, but the style is not consistent in the content. If number style is applied, the first reference should number one! Line 287 error reference style. Reference 71, it is a preprint, should include the Journal.
2. Tables and figures should be provided more to improve explanation, especially in the latter part of the manuscript (section 7) and few reference provided. 
3. Instead of description, it would be helpful to provide examples, such the known policy regarding phytoremediation.
4. Authors should describe how the plant was treated, if decontamination was done.
5. The words "standard" and "sustainable" appear too many times, redundant.
   
   Thank you for you time

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for all your valuable comments to our manuscript. We agreed and revised our manuscript following your comments and suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an extensive and relevant review of phytoremediation design and standardization, bridging scientific research with practical and policy-level applications.

Comments:

• The manuscript is well-researched and includes useful global examples and clear policy relevance.
• Some sections are repetitive, especially when summarizing plant species or environmental parameters, tightening the text would improve clarity.
• Language is sometimes overly formal or unclear; grammar issues and awkward phrasing appear throughout and require careful editing.
• Tables 1 and 2 are overloaded with data. Suggest breaking into more readable formats or moving part to supplementary material.
• The structure of some paragraphs is too long and dense. Use subheadings for better readability.
• The conclusion is strong but could better highlight specific next steps for different country contexts (e.g., low-income vs. developed).
• The policy implications section is comprehensive but lacks prioritization what should be done first?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript provides a well-structured and comprehensive review of phytoremediation systems, with a strong emphasis on standardization and policy integration. It is timely, relevant, and well-supported by literature. However, the text would benefit from language polishing, condensation of dense sections, and improved clarity in data presentation. I recommend minor revisions before acceptance.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for all your valuable comments to our manuscript. We agreed and revised our manuscript following your comments and suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This seems to be a mini review about the phtoremediation of contaminants in water. But seems it did not show the standardised design framework. I suggest to remove "Standardised design framework", as it is a very complicated and systematic concept needs more detailed and specific statements and studies.

1) I suggest the author focus on phytoremediation on contaminant remediation, as it does not show strong relationship with policy driving, or does not have any speciifc cases about how the policy makers drives this based on the proposed approaches. 

2) The review content is very lean, only several headlines covers the logic, under each headline, more detailed running heads should be added to illustrates its specific contents. The content is very general and thin, not good for broad readership.

3) Figure1 , unable to understand what is the so-called standard system. Is it applicable to the whole vetnam conuntry? or any province level? may need to have a specific case to support this.

4) Section 7, looks like not well bond with Fig 1, or Fig 1 is not clearly explained or illustrated in Section . Strong evidence from any application case should be provided to justify this point. 

 

5) Conclusion is very general, specific conclusion is required. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing should be enhanced to make it readable and attractive by more readers. 

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for all your valuable comments to our manuscript. We agreed and revised our manuscript following your comments and suggestions.

We appreciate the reviewer’s critical insight regarding the use of the term “standardised design framework.” In response, we have removed this term from the title, abstract, and throughout the manuscript, as we acknowledge that the concept implies a level of technical rigor and systematic integration that exceeds the scope of this mini review. The revised manuscript now focuses on summarizing current advances in phytoremediation for aquatic contaminants and discussing sustainable implementation pathways without prematurely introducing a formalized design structure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: standards-3700866

The review article by Nguyen et al., entitled “Towards a Standardized Design Framework for Phytoremediation of contaminants in water: Bridging Research and Policy-Driven Applications,” provides a pertinent and significant update on the domain of phytoremediation. The authors effectively advocate for the imperative of a uniform design framework to connect academic research with practical, policy-oriented applications. The manuscript's key merits include its extensive scope, emphasis on concrete advice for policymakers, and the organization of major operational factors into clear, practical tables. The study effectively identifies the main barriers to wider adoption—absence of standardization, policy deficiencies, and inconsistent performance metrics—and outlines a definitive course of action. The article is comprehensive; nonetheless, there are other aspects that could have been enhanced regarding structure, clarity, and depth. The subsequent comments aim to assist the authors in enhancing their work into a more appealing and refined publication.

1. Line 29: The metrics provided ("e.g., >70% for certain heavy metals") are excellent as they add quantitative weight to the abstract.
2. The abstract is somewhat lengthy. Consider reducing for brevity, if feasible, without missing essential details.
3. Lines 82-90: The concluding paragraph of the introduction reiterates fundamental definitions of phytoremediation that have already been addressed. Consider either integrating this information more seamlessly at an earlier stage or eliminating it to enhance the coherence of the policy discussion.
4. Table 1: To augment its worth, consider inserting a column for "Plant Type" (e.g., Floating Macrophyte, Emergent Macrophyte, Hyperaccumulator Fern) to assist readers in categorizing the species. Additionally, concisely explain the criteria employed for the selection of studies/plants for this table (e.g., "Table 1 showcases a curated collection of current research evidencing efficacy across various contaminant categories...").
5. Section 1-2: The consistency of the introductory sections may be strengthened. Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Application Status of Phytoremediation) demonstrate substantial redundancy, especially regarding their examination of regional applications and regulatory frameworks (e.g., lines 53-54 rendering with lines 73-75). Integrating and restructuring these portions would yield a more cohesive and less redundant story.
6. Figure 1 and tables: Figure 1, labeled as the "Schema of standard phytoremediation system," is exceedingly abstract. Although it works effectively as an organizational flowchart, the true "framework" resides inside the comprehensive specifications outlined in Tables 2-5. The article could be strengthened by directly connecting the elements of Figure 1 to the corresponding detailed tables. For example, the text may indicate, "Component (1), the selection of plants, must comply with the temperature suitability criteria described in Table 5..." etc.
7. Line 184: "...ecological compatibility [56, 57]." This is a critical point. It might be beneficial to briefly expand on what "ecological compatibility" entails (e.g., non-invasiveness, suitability to local climate, support for local fauna).
8. Section 5: "Contaminant Characteristics," properly recognizes concentration as a crucial element. In contrast to the comprehensive tables for water quality measures, it lacks specified "standard" levels of concentration for optimal phytoremediation efficacy. Incorporating a table defining standard treatable influent concentrations for important contaminants (e.g., Cd, Pb, As, PAHs) would substantially enhance the proposed framework.
9. Section 5: This is an important area for enhancement. Kindly include a table that defines operational concentration ranges for prevalent pollutants. For example: "Typical Treatable Influent Concentrations for Phytoremediation Systems" in terms of contaminants, typical range (mg/L or µg/L), and notes/key mechanism.
10. The phrasing is somewhat redundant or overly general in multiple instances. Condensing the prose would improve readability and effectiveness.
11. The biological names of plants should be italicized (e.g., Pteris vittata in line 150; Vetiveria zizanioides and Brassica juncea in line 151, etc.).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-written, but a final proofread for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing is recommended.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for all your valuable comments to our manuscript. We agreed and revised our manuscript following your comments and suggestions, particularly regarding structural refinement, clarity enhancement, and improved content depth. We reorganized lengthy paragraphs for better coherence, clarified the relationship between the policy framework and practical tables, and expanded the analysis of performance barriers and policy gaps in Section 4 and Section 7 with additional case-based insights. We have also revised the language throughout the manuscript to strike a balance between academic precision and accessibility. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality and scholarly value of our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The report's structure is appropriate and well-organized. However, there are some errors in the citation format. For example, line 47 cites references 1 to 4, and line 55 skips to references 17 to 30, missing references 5 to 16. Tables 1 to 5 all display the error message "Error! Reference source not found." The error "Error! Reference source not found" appears on lines 124, 156, 294, 297, 303, 308, 325, 334, 348, 351, 370, 375, 386, 391, and 395.

Author Response

Dear Respective Reviewer,

We are deeply grateful for all your valuable comments to our manuscript. We agreed and revised our manuscript following your comments and suggestions. The responses to each your questions are detailed in the table below. Please kindly check.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf