Multi-Target Element-Based Screening of Maize Varieties with Low Accumulation of Heavy Metals (HMs) and Metalloids: Uptake, Transport, and Health Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have critically gone through the manuscript; the authors have worked on very important question. The study is of interest due to both scientific and technical reasons. The subject of study and the framework under which the study is developed are of outstanding importance in a global context due to the implication of the proposals of this study. Experiments seem well designed and methods used appropriated. Results are well described and conclusions based on the results and do not speculative. However, there are still some issues that have to be addressed by the authors before considering the manuscript for publication. My comments are detailed below.

 

- In the “Title”, “Abstract”, and throughout the manuscript, authors should review the use of the terms “heavy metal” and “metal”. For example, arsenic is not a heavy metal, or even a metal; arsenic is a metalloid. Authors can use the term “metal(loid)s” to represent both metals and metalloids. When authors want to refer specifically to heavy metals, and also want to include elements such as arsenic, then they should write “heavy metals and metalloids”.

 

- Authors should rephrase keywords. Do not use words or terms in the title as keywords: the function of keywords is to supplement the information given in the title. Words in the title are automatically included in indexes, and keywords serve as additional pointers.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers：

Thank you very much for your letter and the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Multi-target element-based screening of maize varieties with low accumulation of heavy metals: uptake, transport and their health risks” (Manuscript ID: 2369281). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to each comment referred by the reviewers. In accordance with the requirements of the journal, we have carefully revised the paper format and corrected the grammatical errors. The revised portions were highlighted in the marked-revised manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much.

 

Independent Review Report, Reviewer 1
I have critically gone through the manuscript; the authors have worked on very important question. The study is of interest due to both scientific and technical reasons. The subject of study and the framework under which the study is developed are of outstanding importance in a global context due to the implication of the proposals of this study. Experiments seem well designed and methods used appropriated. Results are well described and conclusions based on the results and do not speculative. However, there are still some issues that have to be addressed by the authors before considering the manuscript for publication. My comments are detailed below.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We appreciate for Reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much.

 

1. In the “Title”, “Abstract”, and throughout the manuscript, authors should review the use of the terms “heavy metal” and “metal”. For example, arsenic is not a heavy metal, or even a metal; arsenic is a metalloid. Authors can use the term “metal(loid)s” to represent both metals and metalloids. When authors want to refer specifically to heavy metals, and also want to include elements such as arsenic, then they should write “heavy metals and metalloids”.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our unclear description. We have replaced “heavy metals” into “heavy metals (HMs) and metalloids” in the “Title”,“Abstract”, and throughout the manuscript”. Please see the marked-revised manuscript.

 

2. Authors should rephrase keywords. Do not use words or terms in the title as keywords: the function of keywords is to supplement the information given in the title. Words in the title are automatically included in indexes, and keywords serve as additional pointers.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We strongly agree with your comments.  

We have rephrase keywords: Heavy metals (HMs) and metalloids; Maize (Zea mays L); phytoremediation; soil remediation; food safety. Please see the marked-revised manuscript. Please see Line 37-38.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript "Multi-target element-based screening of maize varieties with low accumulation of heavy metals: uptake, transport and their health risks" submitted for publication in Agriculture. Authors have screened 11 maize varieties for heavy metal accumulation with an aim to select the varieties with minimum metal content, and linked it to health risks. The work is worthy of publication. However, I have few concerns, as under:

Authors have used 'metal/ heavy metal' even for the metalloid. it should be corrected throughout the ms!

The abstract seems a bit incomplete, lacks information about what has been done? why was it done? how was risk assessed? This should have been provided at the first instance. it is important since abstract is standalone. There is not mention of BF, ADDi etc., in the abstract. The following should be addressed:

What is meant by multi-target? in the title of the ms?

line 11: what is meant by 'optimum' ?

line 12: what is 'field plot'; 

Line 11: What is meant by "purpose of the current field plot study was conducted .. " rephrase it.

line 12: replace 'obtain' with a better phrase/word

Pl mention full name of varieties along with acronyms.

What are NFSS? pl elaborate

Line 19-20: how was it ascertained?

line 44 State should be States?

Provide coordinates of the site where work was undertaken?

line 91-92; it seems incomplete. What were the limits? explain

line 106-107: provide details of management practices: fertilization, watering etc.

line 109: what is meant by mature plants? 

Mercj  should be Merck

Provide methods in detail for AAS analysis. How was quality control ensured? What about the standards used? What was the detection limit of the instrument, etc.

Results are by and large OK.

It would have been better if TF was given separately for leaves and stem.

What were the amounts of metals in the soil after the harvest of the plants? 

The figures are of poor quality. Authors have not properly explained the figure 3. It should be elaborated.

What is 6. patents?

Moderate changes are required.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers：

Thank you very much for your letter and the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Multi-target element-based screening of maize varieties with low accumulation of heavy metals: uptake, transport and their health risks” (Manuscript ID: 2369281). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to each comment referred by the reviewers. In accordance with the requirements of the journal, we have carefully revised the paper format and corrected the grammatical errors. The revised portions were highlighted in the marked-revised manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much.

 

Independent Review Report, Reviewer 2

I have evaluated the manuscript "Multi-target element-based screening of maize varieties with low accumulation of heavy metals: uptake, transport and their health risks" submitted for publication in Agriculture. Authors have screened 11 maize varieties for heavy metal accumulation with an aim to select the varieties with minimum metal content, and linked it to health risks. The work is worthy of publication. However, I have few concerns, as under:

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We appreciate for Reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much.

 

1. Authors have used 'metal/ heavy metal' even for the metalloid. it should be corrected throughout the ms!

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. Arsenic is not a heavy metal, or even a metal; arsenic is a metalloid. We can use the term “metal(loid)s” to represent both metals and metalloids. We want to refer specifically to heavy metals, and also want to include elements such as arsenic, then we should write “heavy metals and metalloids”. Please see the marked-revised manuscript.

2. The abstract seems a bit incomplete, lacks information about what has been done? why was it done? how was risk assessed? This should have been provided at the first instance. it is important since abstract is standalone. There is not mention of BF, ADDi etc., in the abstract. The following should be addressed:

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry the unclear description.

“Mitigating Heavy Metals (HMs) contamination and ensuring the safe production of crops is of paramount importance for sustainable agriculture development. The purpose of the current field plot study was to select maize varieties with low HMs and metalloids in their edible parts but high accumulation in other parts”. We have added “Bioconcentration factor” (BFs) and “average daily intake” (ADDi) in the abstract.  Please see Line 11-14 and 20-21.

 

3. What is meant by multi-target? in the title of the ms?

Response: Thanks for your question. Heavy metals (HMs) pollution in China’s primary crop producing regions is complex, and there is no precise correlation between the HM content in soil and maize kernels. The capacity of various maize varieties to absorb and accumulate HMs can differ significantly depending on their genotypes, and a single maize variety may exhibit vastly different accumulation abilities for different HMs. However, current variety screening focuses on specific pollutant elements, lacking multi-target screening for multiple contaminating elements. Therefore, the selection of maize varieties with low HMs accumulation should be directed towards addressing multiple contaminating elements simultaneously.

 

4. line 11: what is meant by 'optimum' ?

Response: Thanks for your question. Maize, as a major food crop in China, is widely cultivated, has a large biomass and high yield. Yang et al (2020) indicated that Maize has higher biomass and each tissue can accumulate heavy metals during its growth. Therefore, maize as an optimum crop for phytoremediation of soil contaminated with Heavy metals (Sarwar et al., 2017; Huerta et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2019).

5. line 12: what is 'field plot';

Response: Thanks for your question. Sixty plots, measuring 5 m × 3 m, were designed for the field experiment and 55 were randomly planted with 11 maize varieties (5 replicates/variety), while five were not planted to serve as controls.

The sixty plot diagrams
1CK	6HNY21	11QNJ1	16LSCR	21TZ23	26JN20
2CK	7 HNY21	12 QNJ1	17 LSCR	22 TZ23	27 JN20
3CK	8 HNY21	13 QNJ1	18 LSCR	23 TZ23	28 JN20
4CK	9 HNY21	14 QNJ1	19 LSCR	24 TZ23	29 JN20
5CK	10 HNY21	15 QNJ1	20 LSCR	25 TZ23	30 JN20

 

31FT10	36HZHN	41LYN9	46YJN9	51SKN11	56QNJ3
32 FT10	37 HZHN	42 LYN9	47 YJN9	52 SKN11	57 QNJ3
33 FT10	38 HZHN	43 LYN9	48 YJN9	53 SKN11	58 QNJ3
34 FT10	39 HZHN	44 LYN9	49 YJN9	54 SKN11	59 QNJ3
35 FT10	40 HZHN	45 LYN9	50 YJN9	55 SKN11	60 QNJ3

 

6. Line 11: What is meant by "purpose of the current field plot study was conducted .. " rephrase it.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. We have deleted the unclear description. The purpose of the current field plot study was to select maize varieties with low Heavy metals (HMs) and metalloids in their edible parts but high accumulation in other parts. Please see Line 12-14.

 

7. line 12: replace 'obtain' with a better phrase/word

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have replaced “obtain” into “select”. Please see Line 13.

 

8. Pl mention full name of varieties along with acronyms.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. We have added full name of varieties along with acronyms. Please see Line

109-113.

 

9. What are NFSS? pl elaborate

Response: Thank you for your question. The abbreviation NFSS stands for National Food Safety Standard (GB2762-2017, ≤0.1 mg/kg), which was initially defined in the abstract of the original manuscript. Please see Line 23-24.

 

10. Line 19-20: how was it ascertained?

Response: Thank you for your question. The grains of all of test maize varieties contained Cr, As, and Pb contents in accordance with National Food Safety Standards (NFSSs, GB2762-2017, ≤ 0.1 mg·kg^-1), while the Cd concentration in grains of varieties QJN1 (0.084 mg·kg^-1), LSCR (0.094 mg·kg^-1) and JN20 (0.077 mg·kg^-1) in accordance with NFSSs. The translocation factor (TF) of As, Pb and Cr in the grains of 11 maize varieties were found to be less than 1. However, the TF of grain Cd in varieties LYN9, JYN9, and QJN3 exceeded 1. For varieties HNY21, TZ23, and LYN9, the TF of Cd, As, Pb and Cr in the stems/leaves was less than 1. We have revised it. Please see Line 24-28.

 

11. line 44 State should be States?

Response: Thank you for your question. We have replaced “State” into “States”. Please see Line 53.

 

12. Provide coordinates of the site where work was undertaken?

Response: Thank you for your positive suggestion. We have added it. A field experiment was conducted in Wangyan village (29°39’25″ N, 119°35’38″ E). Please see Line 94.

 

13. line 91-92; it seems incomplete. What were the limits? explain

Response: Thank you for your question. The contents of Cd, As, Pb, and Cr in the soils were 7.62, 1.26, 0.30, and 0.45-fold greater than the standards for soil environmental quality agricultural land pollution risk control (GB15618-2018), respectively. Please see Line 105-107.

 

14. line 106-107: provide details of management practices: fertilization, watering etc.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. During the entire growth period, the application rates of N fertilizer, P₂O₅, and K₂O were 225, 120, and 150 kg·hm^-2, respectively. The application rates of N fertilizer were distributed as follows: 50% during transplantation, 20% at the jointing stage, and 30% during the trumpet stage. The application rates of P₂O₅ and N fertilizer were both applied as base fertilizer. The proportion of K₂O application was 60% at the transplanting stage and 40% at the early heading stage. Urea, superphosphate, and potassium sulfate served as the tested N, P, and K fertilizer, respectively. Soil water content was maintained at 60% to 70% of the maximum field water capacity. Normal field cultivation management practices were followed, with timely drainage and deworming efforts. We have provide details of management practices. Please see Line 138-147.

 

15. line 109: what is meant by mature plants?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. The growth period of corn is the number of days from emergence to maturity. We have replace “mature plants” into “The plants were harvest after 102 days of sowing”. Please see line 124.

 

 

16. Mercj should be Merck

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have replaced “Mercj” into “Merck”. Please see line 152.

 

17. Provide methods in detail for AAS analysis. How was quality control ensured? What about the standards used? What was the detection limit of the instrument, etc.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have provided methods in detail for ASS analysis.

Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (GFAAS) was utilized to determine concentrations of Pb, Cd, and Cr elements with reference to the standards GB5009.12-2017 and GB5009.15-2014, and GB 5009.123-2014, respectively. Double-channel hydride generation Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (FAAS) was used for As element determination with reference to the standard GB 5009.11-2014. The operating conditions of the instrument are presented in Table 1S, Table 2S and Table 3S, respectively.

Table.1S Working conditions of GFAAS

Elements	Wave length/nm	Spectral width/nm	Lamp current/mA	Dry		Dry-ash		Atomization		Purification
				Temperature/℃	Time/s	Temperature/℃	Time/s	Temperature/℃	Time/s	Temperature/℃	Time/s
Pb	283.3	0.8	4	90~100	50	500	10	1200	4	2500	4
Cd	228.8	1.2	3	90~100	50	400	10	950	3	2500	4
Cr	357.9	0.5	10%	90~100	50	1200	10	2500	4	2500	4

Table. 2S Working conditions of FAAS

Elements	Negative high voltage/v	Lamp current/mA	Atomizer height /mm	Carries gas/(mL·min-1)	Shielding gas/(mL·min-1)
As	250	30	8	440	900

Table. 3S Microwave digestion parameters

Procedure	Power/w	heating-up time /min	Temperature /℃	Maintenance time /min
1	800	5	120	5
2	800	5	160	10
3	800	5	190	20

 

The multi-element standard solution was prepared by the step-by-step dilution method using 0.5% nitric acid (HNO₃) solution to 50.00 μg·L^-1 of multi-element intermediate solution. A certain amount of multi-element intermediate solution was accurately aspirated with 0.5% HNO₃ solution to prepare standards solution of Pb at concentrations of 0.00, 4.00, 8.00, 12.00, 16.00, and 20.00 μg·L^-1, Cd at 0.00, 1.00, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, and 5.00 μg·L^-1, and Cr at 0.00, 2.50, 5.00, 10.00, and 20.00 μg·L^-1. A certain amount of multi-element intermediate solution was accurately aspirated with 0.5% hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution to prepare standards solution of As at 0.00, 2.50, 5.00, 10.00, and 20.00 μg·L^-1.

The Pb standard solution and the solution to be measured were put into the GFAAS autosampler, and 0.5% HNO₃ solution was used as the carrier fluid to adjust the instrument to the best condition, and the standard curve and sample determination were drawn by automatic injection. The same method was used to determine Cd and Cr. The As standard solution and the solution to be measured were put into the dual-channel hydride generation atomic fluorescence instrument autosampler, use 5% HCl solution as carrier fluid and 2% potassium borohydride solution as reducing agent, adjust the instrument to the best condition, and automatically inject the standard curve and sample determination.

Range and linear detection limit of the studied elements were determined as follows: Using GFAAS, the regression equation for Pb concentration ranging from 0 to 20.0 μg·L^-1 and Cd concentration ranging from 0 to 5.0 μg·L^-1 was found to be y=0.0267x+0.11188, with an R² value of 0.9997 for Pb. For Cd concentration within the same range, the regression equation was determined to be y=0.01771x+0.04733, with an R² value of 0.9991. The concentration of As ranging from 0 to 200.0 μg·L^-1 was determined by FAAS, and the cooresponding regression equation was found to be y=30.2391x+88.0891, with R² value of 0.9984. The regression equation for Cr concentration within the range of 0 to 20 μg·L^-1 was found to be y=0.0237x+0.0045, with R² value of 0.9997. The spiked recoveries of the four HMs and metalloids ranged from 86.5% to 108.0% with RSD <7.0%, indicating good accuracy and precision of the analytical method.

Please see line156-195.

 

18. Results are by and large OK.

Response: Thanks for your comment.

 

19. It would have been better if TF was given separately for leaves and stem.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. To characterize the accumulation and distribution of heavy metal uptake and the uptake characteristics of different genotypes of maize, the transfer coefficients from roots to aboveground parts (stems and leaves) and transfer coefficients from aboveground parts (stems and leaves) to seeds were calculated for different genotypes of maize. Stems and leaves denote the aboveground parts of maize.

 

20. What were the amounts of metals in the soil after the harvest of the plants?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. The purpose of the present field plot study was to identify maize varieties with low metal accumulation in their edible parts but high accumulation in other parts. The results provided a new perspective in
applying maize varieties with different metal-accumulating ability in their different parts to achieve the remediation of metal polluted soil and the sustainable development of agricultural production. Apologies for lacking measurement of HMs content in the soil after plant harvest. The suggesting is highly valuable and will be into account in future research focusing on the selection of super HMs accumulating maize varieties for soil HMs remediation and determination of HMs content in soil after maize harvest.

 

21. The figures are of poor quality. Authors have not properly explained the figure 3. It should be elaborated.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. We have improved the quality of Figure 3. Please see Line 403. The detailed descriptions of Figure 3 was shown in Line 377-396. However, the lack of inclusion of Figures 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d in the text might have caused confusion for the reviewers. Figure 3a, Figure 3b, Figure 3c, and Figure 3d have been added to the respective paragraph.

 

22.What is 6. patents?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the wrong description. We have deleted it.

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Needs to improve the writing quality.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers：

Thank you very much for your letter and the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Multi-target element-based screening of maize varieties with low accumulation of heavy metals: uptake, transport and their health risks” (Manuscript ID: 2369281). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to each comment referred by the reviewers. In accordance with the requirements of the journal, we have carefully revised the paper format and corrected the grammatical errors. The revised portions were highlighted in the marked-revised manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much.

 

Independent Review Report, Reviewer 3
L-12: Delete the word “conducted”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 13.

L-16-17: Rewrite the sentence “The results revealed the growth of variety TZ23 was least affected by the HMs”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. “The results revealed that the growth of maize variety TZ23 was iminimally impacted by HMs and metalloids. Please see Line 21-22.

L-22: Replace the word for with of.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have replaced “for” into “of”. Please see Line 29.

L-22-24: The sentence “Notably, variety JN20 had high and low accumulation capacities for Pb and As, and varieties SKN11 and QJN3 both had high and low accumulation capacities for Cd and As” is not clear. Rewrite the sentence.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. Done. Importantly, the variety JN20 exhibited a high accumulation capacity for Pb and a low capacity for As, while both varieties SKN11 and QJN3 had high accumulation capacities for Cd and low capacities for As. Please see Line 30-33.

 

L-24-28: Writing quality is not up to the marked level. Writing quality must be improved.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Indeed, the manuscript was submitted to Scientific Editing International for language editing on April 3, 2023. Regrettably, issues related to language quality persisted. Therefore, the manuscript was resubmitted on April 28th for a more comprehensive language revision. The supporting documentation is provided below.

 

 

L-41: Cd, one of the most toxic and widely distributed. Rewrite the sentence.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our unclear description. We have replaced “Cd, one of the most toxic and widely distributed” into “Cd, as one of the most toxic and extensively distributed HMs”. Please see Line 51.

L-42: Replace the word is with are

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 51.

L-46-48: Write the sentence clearly.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Cr, a toxic elements pollutant, can hinder plant growth and act as a carcinogen, causing irreversible damage to human organs via the food chain. Addressing the remediation of HMs pollution in agricultural soil and ensuring the safe utilization of contaminated farmland are urgent issues. Done, please see Line 55-57.

L-82: Replace “located a” with “located in a”. Replace “an average” with “with an average”.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, Please see Line 94 and 95.

L- 84: Put before the word passed.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, Please see Line 97.

L- 92: GB15618-2018 not clear

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. GB15618-2018 refers to the document number for the soil environmental quality standard, which focuses on controlling the risk of agricultural land soil pollution. We have revised it. Please see Line 106.

L-106: rows to eliminate the marginal effect. Is it a new sentence? Revise it.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our wrong description. Three maize seeds were sown in each planting hole, and two rows of maize were set up around the experimental site as protection rows to eliminate the marginal effect. Please see Line 119-121.

L-117-118: high yield- Not clear

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our unclear description. We have revised “high yield” into “yield”. Please see Line 66,134.

 

L-138: Evaluation of heavy metal contamination in maize seeds: How? Complete the sentence.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our wrong description. This sentence is redundant, we have deleted it. Please see Line 204.

L-151: Delete the repeated word body

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 220.

L-151-153: average human body body weight (kg), 24, 60, and 59 kg for children, young adults, and middle-aged and elderly, respectively, 78a; BW is the body weight of the receptor (kg), 24, 60, and 59 kg for children, young adults, and middle-aged and elderly, respectively. The description is confusing as it seems that for four categories of people (age group) but authors put only 3 levels of data.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the wrong description. In this study, the weights of 24, 60, and 59 kg corresponded children, young adults, and elderly individuals, respectively. The statement at line 78a is incorrect. We have deleted “average human body weight (kg), 24, 60, and 59 kg for children, young adults, and middle-aged and elderly, respectively, 78a”. Please see Line 220-222.

 
L-160: and its expression is equation (3): Rewrite

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our unclear description. The phrase “its expression is equation (3)” has been revised to “the individuals non-carcinogenic annual risk is calculated by equation (3)”. Please see Line 230.

L-162: Delete the word “where”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, Please see Line 233.

L-165: Replace “and Pb is 0.0035” with “and the value for Pb is 0.0035”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 236.

L-172: Is it Windons or Windows?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have replaced “Windons” into “Windows”. Please see Line 245.

L-174-175: Data Analysis and Graphing Software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). Is it a new sentence? Check carefully.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry about our unclear description. The sentence identified by the reviewer is indeed repetitive when compared to a previous expression, and has consequently been removed. Please see Line 247-248.

 
L-190: Write “variety QJN3” instead of “variety of QJN3”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 264.

 

L-192: In table 1, yield per mu is used, mu is a local unit, therefore it is better to express in hectare. It is suggested to use a consistent unit throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have use hectare as a consistent unit throughout the manuscript. We have replaced “yield per mu” into “yield (kg·hm^-1)” in manuscript. The yield (kg·hm^-1) in Table 1 is uniformly converted to (kg·hm^-1), and the data are converted accordingly. Please see Line 266.

 

L-196: Under the heading “Cd, As, Pb and Cr concentrations in different tissues of maize varieties” it is suggested to mention the standards (both NFSS and (NFHS) for different plant parts of maize so that the readers can easily compare the standard values with the experimental values.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. NFSS and NFHS standards are onpy applicable to evaluation of heavy metals in maize grains.

 

L-213: Replace “of JN20” with “JN20”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. Please see Lin 288.

L-220: Delete “for Cr content”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. Please see Line 296.

L-233: The same below. What does it mean?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. The note clarifies that different lowercase letters in the diagram signify significance of differences in the same HM concentration among various maize genotypes. To avoid redundancy, no further explanation is provided in Figures 2 and Figure 3.

 
L-236: Replace “differenced” with “difference”

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done, please see Line 313.

L-238-246: Revise the writing. BFs are calculated for four plant parts (grains, roots, stems, and leaves), but values are put for 3 times only.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. We have revised it. Please see Line 316-317, 323-324, 328-329, and 335-336.

L-244-254: Describe the BFs for different heavy metals in a consistent way, like first discuss for As, then Pb and so on.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Done. Please see Line 377-396.

 

L-290: In cluster analysis, grouping includes low group, medium group and high group. It needs to clarify the grouping in detail. Like, it needs to clarify what does it mean by high group and what are the basis of such grouping?

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Based on the concentrations of Cd, As, Pb and Cr in maize grains, 11 maize varieties were classified into three categories using cluster analysis: ClassⅠ (low accumulation ability of HMs and metalloids ), Class Ⅱ (medium accumulation ability of HMs and metalloids) and Class Ⅲ (high accumulation ability of HMs and metalloids). This classification reflects the differences in the accumulation ability of various maize genotypes for Cd, As, Pb and Cr. To provide a basis for the selection of maize varieties targeted at specific heavy metal elements, that is, class I and II should be preferred, avoiding class III is more conducive to ensuring the edible safety of maize grains. We are sorry for the unclear description. We have revised it. Please see Line 377-383.

L-316-317: It should be like “Figure 3. Cluster analysis of cadmium (a), arsenic (b), lead (c) and chromium (d) bioconcentration factors in 11 maize varieties” Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have revised the title of Figure 3. Please see Line 405-406.

L-320-321: Category of people is described as children, middle-aged adults, and the elderly. But, previously (like L- 151-153) is it described as children, young adults, and middle-aged and elderly. Very confusing. Presentation should be consistent throughout the manuscript. In L-334-335: again 4 categories are described as children > the elderly > middle-aged adults > young adults. In Table 3, 3 age groups are found as children, young and old.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. In this study, a human health risk assessment was conducted for three groups: children, young adult, and elderly. Throughout the paper, unified statements have been made for these different age group categories.

L-356-358: Liu found that maize plants were more tolerant to As, and the As content was higher in the roots than the grains, stems, and leaves [29,30]. But the work cited in reference no. 29 is not the work of Liu.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We are sorry for the unclear description. We have replaced “Liu found” into “Du found”. Please Line 447. We have deleted the reference of Liu and recorded the references.

 
L-386: Rewrite the sentence- In addition, there notable differences in the capa………….

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. We have revised it. Please see Line 478-479.

 

Overall manuscript writing quality is not good. The way of presentation is not upto the marked level. Massive revision of the manuscript is needed. It is not clear that for maize cultivation, whether the authors applied any fertilizers or not. The experiment is a simple varietal screening trial under heavy metal contaminated soil. Therefore, I could not recommend the manuscript for publication in the reputed journal “Agriculture”. Needs to improve the writing quality.

Response: Thanks for your positive suggestion. Prior to submitting the article, the manuscript was sent to the International Science Editing Company for polishing, as evidenced by the provided voucher. Unfortunately, language issues persisted in the manuscript. It has since been sent back to the International Science Editing Company for further revision. Hopefully, it meets the requirements this time. Additionally, the method section now includes specific details on fertilizer and water management for corn cultivation. We have provided the details of management practices. Please see Line 138-147.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have successfully addressed to the comments of referees. The article has been tremendously improved. it is worthy of publication

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has improved sufficiently to publish in the journal.