Phytoremediation Potential of Melia azedarach and Ailanthus altissima for Pb, Zn, and Cu from Aqueous Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have read your manuscript, entailed: Assessing the Phytoremediation Potential of Melia Azedarach 2 and Ailanthus altissima Under Metal Stress: A Pathway for Re-3 mediation of Pb, Zn, and Cu Contaminated Soils

My comments and suggestions are mentioned below, please consider carefully during the revision process of your manuscript.

1.      The title should be shortened and the novelty should be emphasized in the title.

2.      The novelty of this manuscript is not clearly identified.

3.      Please discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of phytoremediation technology.

4.      Please present the formulas used in the study.

5.      Discuss the analytical method used for the determination of the studied metals as well as validation data.

6.      The quality of figures and tables should be improved.

7.      There are many references that are not visible.

8.      In the results part please compact the discussion with the literature to emphasize the presented study.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a great work, but before it is accepted, the authors have to improve on some things.

Why do the authors use the same concentration for Zn and Pb and not for Cu?

The keywords are different from the words used for the entitled.

The authors should use the abbreviations of the manuscript.

Results and discussion

The authors should read the manuscript thoroughly because there are formatting errors in some parts.

The authors have used old references. Therefore, you should change them.

The authors should improve the quality of the images

The authors should discuss the results. In general, you have interesting results, but you have yet to take advantage of them.

The authors should remove figures 3 and 4

The authors should improve the conclusion

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all my questions and the manuscript was improved. In my opinion it can be accepted for publication. Congratulations!

Author Response

Comment : The authors answered all my questions and the manuscript was improved. In my opinion it can be accepted for publication. Congratulations!

Response: Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging words. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful review and valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We are delighted that the revised version meets your expectations, and we are grateful for your recommendation for acceptance.

Thank you once again for your time and support throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a great work. However, there are some there are some formatting error. You have to fix them.

Author Response

Comment : Thank you for your positive feedback and for pointing out the formatting errors. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and addressed all identified issues to ensure it adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements. We appreciate your careful review and the opportunity to refine our work.

Response : Thank you for your positive feedback and for pointing out the formatting errors. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and addressed all identified issues to ensure it adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements. We appreciate your careful review and the opportunity to refine our work.  We hope these adjustments address your concerns, and we are grateful for your valuable feedback.