Effects of High and Low Aerotechnogenic Emissions of Heavy Metals on Wild Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

lines 74-86:     This text is not about collected material or used methods. Please transfer it into the introduction section.

 

line 114:          1,0 M HCl      (instead of 1,0 N HCl)

 

line 213:          pHaq = 3,9-4,5           Write „aq“ as an inferior text

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

lines 74-86:    This text is not about collected material or used methods. Please transfer it into the introduction section.

Corrected

 line 114:        1,0 M HCl      (instead of 1,0 N HCl)

Corrected

 line 213:        pHaq = 3,9-4,5           Write „aq“ as an inferior text

Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the paper is written well but still need to improve before accepting. I have the following main concerns.

1) The abstract is poorly written, it should be improved.

2) There are excessive citations in introduction and discussion section particulary. I think the authors should remove the unnecessary citations because its making a bad impression. 

3) The results are not well elaborated. Result section should be improved.

4) Why the references are not in uniform style?

5) Please revise the paper for grammatical mistakes and typos. 

Although the paper is written well but still need to improve before accepting. I have the following main concerns.

1) The abstract is poorly written, it should be improved.

2) There are excessive citations in introduction and discussion section particulary. I think the authors should remove the unnecessary citations because its making a bad impression. 

3) The results are not well elaborated. Result section should be improved.

4) Why the references are not in uniform style?

5) Please revise the paper for grammatical mistakes and typos. 

Author Response

1. The abstract is poorly written, it should be improved.

Improved

2. There are excessive citations in introduction and discussion section particulary. I think the authors should remove the unnecessary citations because its making a bad impression. 

Corrected

3. The results are not well elaborated. Result section should be improved.

Improved

4. Why the references are not in uniform style?

Corrected

5. Please revise the paper for grammatical mistakes and typos. 

Manuscript sent for grammar check

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

The English language is understandable and I am not a native English speaker. 

Author Response

 

1. The title contains common words "heavy metals," but the authors worked with only three metals. Therefore, it should be modified with the specific name of the metals.

The main reasons for this decision are as follows:

Atmospheric emissions from Severonickel Combine contain a large number of heavy metals, not only Ni, Cu, Co, therefore the term "heavy metals" was used in the title of the article. But Ni, Cu, Co have the highest concentrations in emissions, so we analysed only their content in plants and forest litter. We could replace 'heavy metals' with 'polymetallic dust', but this is the title of the article in the preprint and the researchers are already reading our publication

2. Please add few more relevant keywords.

Added

3. The introduction is written well but it contains some unnecessary references. Some old references could be deleted from 1-10; 11-15; and 16-24.

Corrected

4. The manuscript lack of clear scientific hypotheses.

The aims of the study have been amended to disclose the scientific objectives

5. The manuscript has been overloaded with many tiresome detailed data from many years. Tables 2 and 3 could be merged.

Tables 2 and 3 cannot be combined. Table 2 gives basic statistics of the content of acid-soluble forms of Ni, Cu, Co in forest litter for two study periods, i.e. the whole data set is divided into 2 parts. Table 3 shows the results of linear regression analysis for the whole data set.

6. The reader cannot find relevant, concise conclusions related to the study and the results verifying these assumptions.

“Conclusions” section modified, brief conclusions formulated

7. Please include a figure of sampling points mentioning the sources of metals and different zones.

Figure added

8. The collection of materials should be modified as most of the information is quite general (80-87, 92-97). These can be written in the introduction section.

Corrected, some of the information has been moved to the Introduction

9. The method section is too short without how the sampling was done and how it was processed. For example, section 2.2. Determination of metal content and section 2.3. Determination of the width of the annual rings of pine trunks needs to be described in detail.

Corrected, some of the information added

10. Line 89-90, background, buffer and impact zones are 65, 30 and 15 km away from the sources. Please clarify it how the distance was confirmed for the different zones. Is it universal or determined by the authors?

Corrected

11. Line 99. Please change table 1 to Table 1.

Corrected

12. Line 130, elaborate

WRB disclosed

13. The discussion lost its conciseness and clarity. Discussion (which, in my opinion should be written apart from results) would be implemented and some parts, rewritten, by re-evaluating the results of some analyses you have performed in the present version.

Discussion modified

14. There are too many sub-sections. Several sections from the discussion could be well fitted in the introduction. For example potential risks of heavy metals on human.

Corrected, part of the text moved to the Introduction

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the modification of the manuscript accordingly.