Bisphenol A Effects in Aqueous Environment on Lemna minor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work Pop et al. aims to evaluate the effects of Bisphenol A in aquatic environment, using Lemna minor as a study organism. 

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a very hazardous compound, having the ability to bind to estrogen receptors and, furthermore, it can leak from plastic under UV and high temperature.

As the plastic pollution as well as global warming are continuing, the work has high relevance and will be an important addition to the current literature as BPA is now banned in some countries (Canada) but highly tolerated in countries that produce industrial quantities of plastic (Ukraine, Rusia, etc.).   

The title of the work is relevant, the abstract is written in a clear and concise manner.

The introduction should be expanded and more data should be brought in this chapter as it's simply not enough.

The materials and methods section is well made, the authors have clearly described the methods in a very reproductible manner allowing the experiment to be easily replicated by others. The 3 point standard curve is acceptable. Results, discussions and conclusions are presented in a clear and acceptable manner.

My only concern is regarding the introduction, which has to be expanded. Besides that, congratulations for a work well done!

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for its general opinion regarding our manuscript as well as for its valuable remarks, please find attached the file with our point by point reply

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Opinion related to paper entitled: Bisphenol A effects in aqueous environment on Lemna minor.

Bisphenol A, a precursor of plastics, resins and primarily polycarbonates, is an important environmental pollutant, particularly for water and atmosphere. In the current global situation, threatened by a serious climate crisis due to man-made pollution all such a papers are very valuable. In my opinion the paper is interesting and worth publishing, but I have doubts about the choice of the journal. I think the work should be sent to a journal with a more botanical or environmental journal.

Detailed remarks:

1. Line 63: explain BPA in text or in the title of section.
2. Line 64: should be ≥ 99%.
3. Line 65: why ethanol is capitalized.
4. Line 77: English, “containing culture water each”.
5. Line 109: explain MDA (malondialdehyde).
6. Lines 113, 115: why thiobarbituric acid is capitalized.
7. Line 122: should be “cryodesiccated”.
8. Line 126: should be “µm” instead of “µ”.
9. Line 131: should be cryodesiccated.
10. Line 135: should be ≥ 99%.
11. Lines 152-155: sentence “Microbiological assay after an 24 h incubation at 35°C revealed luxuriant colonies of non-fermenting gram-negative bacteria, as well as punctiform colonies of non-lactose fermenting Escherichia coli, identified by colorless and pink, respectively blue-black with green metallic sheen colonies” is not clear and should be corrected.
12. Line 165: the description of fig. 3 should be changed (for example: chlorophyll content......).
13. Line 170: the same figure 4, in addition the description: control, 50 ppm, 100 ppm, 200 ppm should be corrected.
14. Lines 177, 178: should be µM or nM? please explain.
15. Line 180: figure 5, it is not necessary to show absorbance.

16. Line 219: sentence “Lipid peroxidation........................” is not clear, please rephrase.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for its valuable remarks, please see our point-by-point reply in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of paper is poor, I would like to request authors to revise paper according to guideline of the journal. a Abstract Overall the summary of study was not appropriately presented in this section. The result of the study was not appropriately stated in this section. The study was all about the Water microbiota and physico–chemical parameters in relation with fish diversity along the Danube River, but I am really surprise no result and discussion about it in the abstract section. Introduction Over all this section was written carefully and scientifically sound. Methodology This section is well organized and technically. Result This section needs to be revised carefully. The presentation of data need to consider showing highest and lowest values. Please do not considered values after decimal, you can keep round figure. Please revise the figure by showing the round figure data throughout the journal. Discussion It can be arrange more appropriately with providing more relevant references, while conclusion section is too long to read. I would like to request author to provide concise and more reliable conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the manuscript sounds interesting, as research on the role of the microbiome is currently developing in many research centers. However, in the introduction, the authors did not include any works that would support their hypothesis about the possible connection of the human intestinal microbiota with the ichthyofauna diversity. Many factors affected species diversity, including river depth, current speed and bottom type. They should be taken into account in the research.

Results are presented without further elaboration, rather are a sampling report. Moreover, their presentation is incorrect. Table 1 should be a true table presenting the tested parameters vs sampling points. This will make it possible to compare the data between the sampling points. Fish diversity data cannot be presented in a line chart where the individual data is linked by a line. A pie chart should be used. In addition to the diversity data it should be advisable to include the total number of fish caught.

The authors should properly describe the results presented in the 3.2 section, comparing the data obtained in the sampling points. It would be advisable to include an appropriate statement of results (Table) or graphical comparison.

I did not find any discussion in the section Results and Discussion.

In the Conclusions section, the authors repeated their assumptions, not supported by the results obtained.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

please revise the other papers in "Water" journal and adapt your paper the specific requirements of the journal. Please use the journal template and style of citing of sources [1],..

The introduction of a research paper should contain a few other parts/ elements such as the chief goal(s) and objectives of the research, a brief but informative outline of the following content, explained, concept definitions, a brief history of the research into the topic, recent related discoveries, etc.).

Please provide the novelty of the work.

 

Discussion:

There is lack of this part in the research. Please provide the comparison with some other papers. For now there is lack of deep discussion of the obtained results.

 

Conclusions:

Please provide the conclusions, not repetition of the results.

 

References:

Should be adapted to journal template.

 

Good luck!