Comparative Phytoremediation Potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor, and Pistia stratiotes in Two Treatment Facilities in Cluj County, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript compares the phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor, and Pistia stratiotes in two treatment facilities from Cluj County, Romania. The aim of this paper is interesting and the experimental analysis was apparently well conducted. However, there are several points that need explanation and/or correction. Please see the comments below.

 1. The title must be revised - I suggest remove the common names of the species: “Comparative phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor, and Pistia stratiotes in two treatment facilities from Cluj County, Romania”;

2. Abstract: Phytoremediation is an effective method for the accumulation of certain contaminants... Suggestion: Phytoremediation is an effective method to control the accumulation of certain contaminants...

3. The keywords should be concise, specific and relevant. Words appearing in the title should be avoided. Use words that make it possible to broaden the search for this work in the databases;

4- Introduction:

-  Line 73: please replace Eichhornia crassipes by Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms;

- Line 81: please replace Lemna minor by Lemna minor L.;

- Line 90: please replace Pistia stratiotes by Pistia stratiotes L.;

- Lines 99 to 101: “… studying the bioaccumulation of AN, NO3–, NO2–, phosphorous (through spectrophotometric determinations) and two common metals, Fe and Cr (using atomic
absorption spectrometry) in two different treatment facilities” – please rephrase to “.... studying the bioaccumulation of AN, NO3–, NO2–, phosphorous and common metals, Fe and Cr in two different treatment facilities”;

 5- Material and Methods section

- Line 103: please initially insert a small section containing all reagents used. Example: 2.1 Chemicals: - Please, start the sentence with: The following chemicals were purchased from different manufacturers: … Also, provide in parentheses (Manufacturer, City, Country) for all the chemicals;

- Line 107: please, provide information on origin of the three plant species, identification, herbarium record and vouchers number;

- Lines 117 to 122: please provide this information at the end of the Material and Methods section;

- Lines 123 to 124: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

 - Please, provide all device/equipment names in the following format: device or equipment (Model, Company, City, Country);

- Lines 128 to 129: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

- Lines 136 to 138: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

- Lines 141 to 142: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

- Line 145: “The absorbance is measured at 663 nm, and the results are expressed as mg...” – please use the past form and review the entire methodology;

- Lines 150 to 153: please remove this information; it applies to the routine calculation of these values. Please remove this information from the all other chemical analyzes described;

- Lines 155 to 156: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

- Lines 167 to 168: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information and please review for the entire methodology. If this is not done, there will be no match in the reference list;

6- Results section:

- Line 227: all figures must be presented immediately after cited; in this case, the figure must be presented after Table 1;

- Tables: I think that there are many individualized tables. I suggest joining all tables into a single table containing the result of all analytes evaluated;

- Figures: in general, all the figures need to be improved in terms of their layout. I suggest removing the title of each figure and adding it to the legend, removing the grid lines, adding line and title on the x and y axes. Place the indication (a), (b) and (c) in the upper part, to the right of their respective figures;

- Figures captions: please review – Example: “Figure 1. Histograms representing the phytoremediation capacities for three nitrogen species: (a) AN, (b) nitrite and (c) nitrate, for the three species. EC – E. crassipes, LM – L. minor, PS – P. stratiotes” – Please use just: “Phytoremediation capacities for three nitrogen species: (a) AN, (b) nitrite and (c) nitrate, for the three species. EC – E. crassipes, LM – L. minor, PS – P. stratiotes. Results are expressed as mean and standard deviation (n=3)”;

 7- Discussion section

 

- Line 338: “L. minor has also been found to remove AN efficiently, and Aziz et al. have...” – in this case, please provide the citation immediately after mentioning the authors and not at the end of the sentence - “L. minor has also been found to remove AN efficiently, and Aziz et al. [34] have...” - please review too lines 340, 341, 349 and others in entire discussion section;

- Line 349: “Ceschin et al. showed that L. minor, as well as L. minuta, is able to ...” – please rephrase to: Ceschin et al. [40] showed that L. minor, as well as L. minuta, are able to ...”;

8- Conclusion section: the conclusion presents a summary of the results and it is very extensive. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review.

 In my final comments, I recommend that the manuscript should be widely reviewed by the authors. The Tables and Figures must be improved in order to better highlight the results found.

The manuscript must be submitted to English review as well as a grammar review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This manuscript compares the phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor, and Pistia stratiotes in two treatment facilities from Cluj County, Romania. The aim of this paper is interesting and the experimental analysis was apparently well conducted. However, there are several points that need explanation and/or correction. Please see the comments below.

Responses to questions: Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! We will respond accordingly to every question/suggestion.

The title must be revised - I suggest remove the common names of the species: “Comparative phytoremediation potential of Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna minor, and Pistia stratiotes in two treatment facilities from Cluj County, Romania”;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have modified the title accordingly.

Abstract: Phytoremediation is an effective method for the accumulation of certain contaminants... Suggestion: Phytoremediation is an effective method to control the accumulation of certain contaminants...

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

The keywords should be concise, specific and relevant. Words appearing in the title should be avoided. Use words that make it possible to broaden the search for this work in the databases;

We have revised. Moreover, after changing the title, the common names of the plant species are not in the title anymore and we left them in Keywords.

 

4- Introduction:

-  Line 73: please replace Eichhornia crassipes by Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

- Line 81: please replace Lemna minor by Lemna minor L.;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

- Line 90: please replace Pistia stratiotes by Pistia stratiotes L.;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

- Lines 99 to 101: “… studying the bioaccumulation of AN, NO3–, NO2–, phosphorous (through spectrophotometric determinations) and two common metals, Fe and Cr (using atomic
absorption spectrometry) in two different treatment facilities” – please rephrase to “.... studying the bioaccumulation of AN, NO3–, NO2–, phosphorous and common metals, Fe and Cr in two different treatment facilities”;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have rephrased this paragraph.

 

 5- Material and Methods section

- Line 103: please initially insert a small section containing all reagents used. Example: 2.1 Chemicals: - Please, start the sentence with: The following chemicals were purchased from different manufacturers: … Also, provide in parentheses (Manufacturer, City, Country) for all the chemicals;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have added the section 2.1.Chemicals and equipment, along with the necessary information for the used chemicals.

- Line 107: please, provide information on origin of the three plant species, identification, herbarium record and vouchers number;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have added the necessary information for the used plant species.

- Lines 117 to 122: please provide this information at the end of the Material and Methods section;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have moved the paragraph.

- Lines 123 to 124: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

We have added the standard as citation.

 - Please, provide all device/equipment names in the following format: device or equipment (Model, Company, City, Country);

Thank you for the suggestion! We have added the section 2.1.Chemicals and equipment, along with the necessary information for the used equipment.

- Lines 128 to 129: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

We have added the standard as citation.

- Lines 136 to 138: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

We have added the standard as citation.

- Lines 141 to 142: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

We have added the standard as citation.

- Line 145: “The absorbance is measured at 663 nm, and the results are expressed as mg...” – please use the past form and review the entire methodology;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it for all the paragraphs.

- Lines 150 to 153: please remove this information; it applies to the routine calculation of these values. Please remove this information from the all other chemical analyzes described;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have decided to let the formulas in the manuscript, since the other reviewers asked for different modifications on them.

- Lines 155 to 156: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information;

We have added the standard as citation.

- Lines 167 to 168: please provide citation [in square brackets] of this information and please review for the entire methodology. If this is not done, there will be no match in the reference list;

We have added the standard as citation. We have reviewed all methodology.

 

6- Results section:

- Line 227: all figures must be presented immediately after cited; in this case, the figure must be presented after Table 1;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have moved the first Figure after Table 1.

- Tables: I think that there are many individualized tables. I suggest joining all tables into a single table containing the result of all analytes evaluated;

Thank you for the suggestion! We consider that, given the high number of values and information, we needed more tables to present the results. Consequently, we have decided to leave the tables separate and we will consider using less tables in our future research studies.

- Figures: in general, all the figures need to be improved in terms of their layout. I suggest removing the title of each figure and adding it to the legend, removing the grid lines, adding line and title on the x and y axes. Place the indication (a), (b) and (c) in the upper part, to the right of their respective figures;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have improved the figures considering these suggestions (removed title, added to legend, removed grid lines, added indications).

- Figures captions: please review – Example: “Figure 1. Histograms representing the phytoremediation capacities for three nitrogen species: (a) AN, (b) nitrite and (c) nitrate, for the three species. EC – E. crassipes, LM – L. minor, PS – P. stratiotes” – Please use just: “Phytoremediation capacities for three nitrogen species: (a) AN, (b) nitrite and (c) nitrate, for the three species. EC – E. crassipes, LM – L. minor, PS – P. stratiotes. Results are expressed as mean and standard deviation (n=3)”;

Thank you for the suggestion! We have improved the figures captions considering these suggestions.

 

 7- Discussion section

- Line 338: “L. minor has also been found to remove AN efficiently, and Aziz et al. have...” – in this case, please provide the citation immediately after mentioning the authors and not at the end of the sentence - “L. minor has also been found to remove AN efficiently, and Aziz et al. [34] have...” - please review too lines 340, 341, 349 and others in entire discussion section;

We have corrected it.

- Line 349: “Ceschin et al. showed that L. minor, as well as L. minuta, is able to ...” – please rephrase to: Ceschin et al. [40] showed that L. minor, as well as L. minuta, are able to ...”;

We have corrected it.

 

8- Conclusion section: the conclusion presents a summary of the results and it is very extensive. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review.

We have rephrased the Conclusion section, and now the section is shorter.

In my final comments, I recommend that the manuscript should be widely reviewed by the authors. The Tables and Figures must be improved in order to better highlight the results found.

Thank you for the suggestion! The entire manuscript has been widely reviewed, given the fact that the other reviewers asked for major revisions as well.

The manuscript must be submitted to English review as well as a grammar review.

     Thank you for your suggestion! As it can be observed from the revised manuscript, the grammar and orthography have been corrected throughout the entire manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I would like to congratulate you on your research. I would like some clarification firstly why two periods were chosen to measure the metals (iron and chromium) instead of three and why these measurement time intervals (2 and 7 days) were chosen. Row 31-32 in the text maybe needed more repetitions? I consider histograms redundant since all the information is given in the corresponding tables

Author Response

Point 1: why two periods were chosen to measure the metals (iron and chromium) instead of three

Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! We will respond accordingly to every question/suggestion.

Response 1: We have chosen two periods instead of three because this study served as a case study, opting to verify the applicability of the three species in the two wastewater treatment facilities. Considering this information, in the following research studies we will consider a higher number of periods, in order to better understand the accumulation patterns of the species.

Point 2: why these measurement time intervals (2 and 7 days) were chosen. Row 31-32 in the text maybe needed more repetitions?

Response 2: The measurement time intervals (2 and 7 days respectively) have been chosen according to the average vegetative period corresponding to these aquatic species. In other words, these time periods should correlate with the optimal absorption of nutrients from the aquatic medium, and we considered this would induce the highest phytoremediation capacities.

Point 3: I consider histograms redundant since all the information is given in the corresponding tables

Response 3: We have chosen to use histograms in a similar manner to previous research studies, which had a similar approach. Moreover, we believe that, due to the high volume of results, the graphs help the reader understand the information better. In addition, according to the suggestions of the other reviewes, we have decided to eliminate the figure 1b), due to readability issues. Consequently, we consider that the quality of the histograms have been improved and help the understanding of the information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Phytoremediation is the process of using plants and associated soil microbes to reduce contaminant concentrations or their hazardous effects on the environment, and this article discusses Comparative phytoremediation investigations in Cluj County, Romania. Regarding the topic worldwide, scientists work on it, and the introduction is highly thorough and extensive and provides information on it. The authors discuss the techniques employed to ascertain three well-known species in the wastewater and use different treatment methods.

 

But there are a few things to keep in mind. The work is appropriate for publication in the Journal of Horticulturae, but some points should be taken into consideration: 

 

Comments and Suggestions 

 

Q: What's your suggestion about additional research that should be conducted using the same or different techniques and objectives? 

 

Q: In the figures, what’s your motivation for reviewers/researchers to agree with the current figure’s low values (especially figures 1 a and b)? Even if it’s not readable. How the reader will be able to understand low values (especially figures 1 a and b)? For me, these two figures are not easy to read or understand. Can you explain it in detail? Specially check figure 1 b and explain it. 

 

Q: Why (figure 1) has three different sections, and why you didn’t do it in a single frame (graph)? 

 

Q: Why did you use this method for wastewater treatment? What are its future and current advantages? 

 

Please pay attention to the formulas, please revise them carefully 

Please, check all the values and units in the tables and the entire manuscript.  

Here are some articles I recommend; please read it, and I hope that will be helpful for you for the revision.

 

Research Progress on Heavy Metals Pollution in the Soil of Smelting Sites in China DOI: 10.3390/toxics10050231

 

Heavy Metal, Waste, COVID-19, and Rapid Industrialization in This Modern Era—Fit for Sustainable Future

 

DOI: 10.3390/su14084746

 

Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Chinese Loess

 

DOI: 10.3390/land12010133

 

Preliminary Study on the Distribution, Source, and Ecological Risk of Typical Microplastics in Karst Groundwater in Guizhou Province, China

 

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192214751

 

Seasonal co-pollution characteristics of parent-PAHs and alkylated-PAHs in karst mining area soil of Guizhou, Southwest China

 

DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.990471

 

 

 

Line 25: Not “wastewaters” Please correct it “wastewater  

Line 27: after the word “species” there is no need of comma (,). Please correct it. 

 

Line 28: (in the Cluj County in Romania,) change it into (in Cluj County in Romania) 

Line 30: after the word iron put comma, like that (iron,) 

 

Line 31: put comma after the word (minor,) Plus focus on the entire manuscript where comma is needed please correct it.  

 

Line 39: replace this words “reason why the process of” with word “so” 

Line 41: it’s not wastewaters, please correct it in the entire manuscript where it need changes, its “wastewater” 

 

Line 41-42: the words (a lot of) change it into (many) 

 

Line 42: pay attention to the commas (,) put comma after this word (detergents,) 

Line 43: it’s wastewater 

 

Line 45-47: it will be like that “Different methods are used to decontaminate wastewater, but one of the best approaches involves using low-cost, sustainable, and green technologies, such as bioremediation” 

Line 54: comma after (reason,) 

 

Line 56: its wastewater 

 

Line 58: no need of the word (a) here “presents a higher” it’s like that “presents higher” 

 

Line 58: put “the” before “reason” like that “the reason” 

Line 60: its not waters, it water 

 

Line 62: please pay attention into the comma (,) its like that (for example,) 

Line 64: the dissolved inorganic, its like that (dissolved inorganic) 

Line 67: not rises, it’s (raises) 

 

Line 70: the sentence heavy metals bioaccumulators, it should be like that “heavy metals bioaccumulation” or it should be like “heavy metal bio accumulators”, please correct it 

 

Line 71-73: this sentence is like that, “Among the species known for phytoremediation, some have a high potential, and some macrophytes are currently under much research attention” 

 

Line 73-75: this sentence is like that “One such species is Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth, Pontederiaceae), a floating macrophyte that can absorb a wide range of pollutants from wastewater and accelerate its proliferation as a result of intense photosynthesis” 

 

Line 79: of rapid development, it’s like that “for rapid development” 

Line 82: no need to write “the advantage of having”, it just like that “with a high bioremediation efficiency” 

 

Line 84: put comma (,) after these words “nanomaterials toxins” like that (nanomaterials, toxins,) 

 

Line 86: it’s not “storing”, it’s “storage” 

 

Line 87: it’s like this “in wetlands or stationary settings, and also,” 

Line 92: in this sentence, “the same time” put comma after the word “time” like that “the same time,” 

 

Line 93: please correct this word “binging” I think it’s not binging, it “binding” 

Line 98: it’s not “in the Cluj”, it’s like that, “in Cluj”, and also no need to put comma (,) after the word “species”. Plus, the word, “wastewaters” it’s wastewater or wastewaters? 

Line 103: put comma (,) after this word, “plant material” such as, “plant material,” 

Line 112：it’s not “of plant have”, it’s like “of the plant has” 

Line 115: its not “on different dates” it’s like that “in different dates” 

Line 116: after the word “August” put comma (,) like that “August,” 

Line 116-117: please rewrite this sentence “and for time period the parameters have been analyzed at 116 an initial time, after 48 hours and after another 5 days (7 days in total)” here, I suggest, if it’s meaning is the same the put it here, like that, “and for time period the parameters have been analyzed at 116 an initial time, after 48 hours and after another 5 days (7 days in total)” 

 

Line 117-120: it’s should be like that, “Based on separate percentages of analyte eliminated from the tested wastewater, the results have been expressed as phytoremediation yield as an average of the three periods considered” please check it? 

 

Line 123: it’s not “sampling of the wastewater”, it’s like that “wastewater sampling” 

 

Line 126: no need of comma (,) after that “glass fiber filters” 

Line 130-131: please rewrite this sentence, “In the study, several phytoremediation parameters have been assessed, specifically 130 AN, total nitrogen, phosphorous and two metals (Fe and Cr)” 

 

Line 131: please pay attention on the grammar, no need of article “the” here, it’s like that “The duration of study” 

 

Line 132: (between 10th of May 2020 and 3rd of September 2020), it should be like that “(between the 10th of May 2020 and the 3rd of September 2020)” 

Line 136: it’s not “study are taken”, it’s like that “study is taken” 

Line 144: please check this, “nitrosopentacyanoferrate (II)” it’s nitrosopentacyanoferrate (II), or nitrosopentacyanoferrate (III)? 

 

Line 152: please check where the comma is need put it, here put comma (,) after the parenthesis like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),” 

Line 157: please check this “4-amino-benzenesulphonamide”, it should be like that, “4-amino-benzenesulfonamide” or “4-amino-benzene sulphonamide” further you check it which one is the right? 

 

Line 158: it’s not “(1-naphtyl)” pay attention to spelling, it’s like that “(1-naphthyl)” 

Line 163: of sample and blank, it’s like that “of the sample and blank,” 

Line 164: put comma (,) after parenthesis, like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),”

 

Line 166-167: Please rewrite this sentence or check the one I suggested, if it’s meaning is same the put it. (For the determination of nitrates, the spectrophotometric assay based on 2,6- dimethylphenol has been used, according to SR ISO 7890-1: 1998 (Quality of water) it’s should be like that, “The spectrophotometric assay based on 2,6- dimethylphenol has been used for determining nitrates, according to SR ISO 7890-1: 1998 (Quality of water. Determination of nitrate content. Part 1)” 

 

Line 169: (sulfuric and phosphoric) put comma (,) here “sulfuric, and phosphoric 

Line 174: pay attention the article (the), it’s not “of sample”, it’s like that “of the sample” 

 

Line 179-181: please rewrite this sentence, “The conversion of polyphosphates and organic phosphorous to orthophosphate is realized by hydrolysis with sulfuric acid, and the complete transformation is done with potassium persulfate” 

 

Line 182-183: (which is reduced by ascorbic acid), it should be like that “which ascorbic acid reduces” 

 

Line 188: (capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL) put comma (,) after the parenthesis like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),” 

 

Line 192: (nitric acid in a Berghoff) it’s like that “nitric acid in Berghoff” 

Line 199: (with electrical heated) it’s should be like that “with an electrically heated” 

 

Line 204: (microwave assisted) it should be like that “microwave-assisted” 

Line 205: (of sample) it’s should be like that “of the sample” 

Line 207: (In case of effervescence, the nitric acid) it should be like that “In the case of effervescence, nitric acid” 

 

Line 208: (added in a 100 mL) it should be like that “added to a 100 mL” 

Line 214: ((expressed as mg/L) and) put comma (,) after parenthesis, like that “(expressed as mg/L), and” 

 

Line 217-220: please rewrite this sentence “As it can be observed, the highest 217 phytoremediation yields for AN have been identified for the wastewater from Sânpaul 218 Treatment Facility, with average yields between 97 and 100% for the three plant species, 219 in both entry and evacuation waters, after a period of 7 days” 

 

Line 224: (which was able to eliminate) it should be like that “which eliminated” 

Line 225-227: Please rewrite this sentence (Overall, L. 225 minor showed the highest yields (in a shorter time) in comparison to the other two 226 species, as it can be observed from figure 1a)  

 

Line 228: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 232: please check this “content in nitrite and nitrate ions” its “in” or “of” 

 

Line 238: (but for the evacuation water) put comma (,) here like that “but for the evacuation water,” 

 

Line 240: (in entry water,) it should be like that “in entry water” 

Line 241: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 232-240: this paragraph meaning is not very clear if possible hen rewrite otherwise just make the above mentioned changes 

 

Line 246-247: (In 246 this case, E. crassipes was able to lower the nitrate content by 70 to 82%) please pay attention the grammar here, check it properly? 

Line 248: (t Facility, however in the Sânpaul Treatment Facility the) it should be like that “Facility; however, in the Sânpaul Treatment Facility, the” 

 

Line 250: (but smaller capacity) it should be like that “but a smaller capacity” 

Line 255: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 262: ((b) nitrite and (c)) please put the comma (,) here after the word nitrite like that “(b) nitrite, and (c)” 

 

Line 267: (has been the most effective) it should be like that “have been the most effective” 

 

Line 271: (showing yields up to 66%.) it should be like that “showing yields of up to 66%.” 

 

Line 274: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 283-284: (in Table 5 and 283 Table 6, respectively.) no need for word repetition, it should be like that “presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.”  

Line 285: (with a slightly higher) it should be like that “with slightly higher” 

Line 288: “(with maximal yield of 58%).” It should be like that “(with a maximal yield of 58%).” 

 

Line 289: (both type of waste waters) Please correct it grammar? 

 

Line 293: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 300-302: (Even though E. crassipes was able 300 to accumulate 91% of Cr from the entry wastewater, the other yields have been much 301 lower, ranging from 68 to 82%.) please rewrite this sentence it’s meaning is not very clear 

 

Line 302-303: (showed a similar 302 efficacy to P. stratiotes, however the) it should be like that “showed similar efficacy to P. stratiotes; however, the” 

Line 303-305: (In a similar matter to 303 Fe remediation, Cr elimination capacities improvement with time, and consequently 304 maximal values have been reached after one week of contact for all the considered cases.) it should be like that “In a similar matter to Fe remediation, Cr elimination capacities improve with time, and consequently, maximal values have been reached after one week of contact for all the considered cases.” 

Line 306: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

 

Line 315: please put comma (,) after Fe like that “AN, P, Fe, and Cr.” 

Line 317: (effective, nonetheless even in the case of this species the remediation yields have been higher than 70% in average.) it should be like that “effective; nonetheless, even in the case of this species, the remediation yields have been higher than 70% on average.” 

 

Line 323: (AN, P, Fe and Cr, after) it should be like that “AN, P, Fe, and Cr, after” 

Line 326: (Overall, the findings of the present study highlighted the fact that the examined) it should be like that “Overall, the present study's findings highlighted that the examined” 

 

Line 332: (in phytoremediation of wastewaters. As pollutant,) it should be like that “in the phytoremediation of wastewater. As a pollutant,” 

Line 337-338: (high as 50 g/kg of plant) it should be like that “high as 50 g/kg of the plant” 

 

Line 339: (reported a 80.4%) it should be like that “reported an 80.4%” 

Line 340: (have found a reduction) it should be like that “has found a reduction” 

Line 344-345: (wastewater, after a period of 7 days. E. crassipes was observed to be less effective in this matter after only 48 hours, nonetheless L. minor) it should be like that “wastewater after a period of 7 days. E. crassipes was observed to be less effective after only 48 hours; nonetheless, L. minor” 

 

Line 353-355: (efficiency, and that after one week the nitrite is released back in the medium.) it should be like that “efficiency and that after one week, the nitrite is released back into the medium.” 

Line 358: (48% and respectively 28 to 51%). The results suggest that there is a difference in the) it should be like that “48% and 28 to 51%). The results suggest a difference in the” 

 

Line 360-362: (The nitrate anions present a relatively low toxicity, however the problem is related 360 to their capacity to produce another species, such as nitrite, nitric oxide and nitroso 361 derivatives) it should be like that “The nitrate anions present relatively low toxicity; however, the problem is related to their capacity to produce other species, such as nitrite, nitric oxide, and nitroso derivatives” 

Line 362: (for aquatic ecosystems) it should be like that “to aquatic ecosystems” 

Line 362-364: (E. 362 crassipes removed 40 and 77% of nitrate after 48 hours of contact, and for the same period 363 of time P. stratiotes removed 71 and 70% of this nitrogen species.) it should be like that “E. crassipes removed 40 and 77% of nitrate after 48 hours of contact, and P. stratiotes removed 71 and 70% of this nitrogen species for the same period.” 

Line 366: (with the results of a previous study,) please pay attention to grammar, it should be like that “to the results of a previous study,” 

Line 369-370: (as well 369 as for the rise in cyanobacteria) it should be like that “and the rise in the cyanobacteria” 

 

Line 372: (For E. crassipes the yields) it should be like that “For E. crassipes, the yields” 

 

Line 376-377: (low polluting phosphorous rich) it should be like that “low-polluting phosphorous-rich” but here in this sentence you mentioned the word “wastewaters” please clarify it, it’s whether “wastewaters” or “wastewater” 

 

Line 378-379: (water during a three weeks 378 period) it should be like that “water during three weeks” 

 

Line 380: (phosphate up to three weeks, and after four weeks the) it should be like that “phosphate for up to three weeks; after four weeks, the” 

Line 384: (similarly a study found a removal of) it should be like that “similarly, a study found the removal of” 

 

Line 385: (E. crassipes is more efficient) please check grammar properly, it should be like that “E. crassipes are more efficient” 

Line 387-388: (heavy metals that are accumulated in waste waters, they present the disadvantage of being non degradable, which) it should be like that “heavy metals accumulated in wastewater, they present the disadvantage of being non-degradable, which” 

 

Line 390-391: (exposure for heavy metals, showing a risk of bioaccumulation in the living organisms) it should be like that “exposure to heavy metals, showing a risk of bioaccumulation in living organisms” 

Line 392: (wastewaters) please check it properly whether it’s “wastewaters” or “wastewater”? 

Line 394-395: (sources, however a significant quantity of Cr originates in anthropogenic 394 activities, such as electroplating, tanning, petroleum refinery and alloy industry) it should be like that “sources; however, much Cr originates in anthropogenic activities, such as electroplating, tanning, petroleum refinery, and alloy industry” 

 

Line 397: (adsorption and ion exchange [45], but one of the most) it should be like that “adsorption, and ion exchange [45]. Still, one of the most” 

 

Line 399-401: (capacity of accumulating heavy metals, with a 399 potential of removing 70% to 90% in a short amount of time [42], and it can absorb high 400 levels of Zn, Cr, Cu and Cd effectively) it should be like that “capacity to accumulate heavy metals, potentially removing 70% to 90% in a short time [42]. It can effectively absorb high Zn, Cr, Cu, and Cd levels” 

Line 403: (P. stratiotes, it seems that water hyacinth has) it should be like that “P. stratiotes, water hyacinth has” 

 

Line 404: (other species is more) it should be like that “other species are more” 

Line 405: (Furthermore, L. minor has also been studied, and it showed really high removing) it should be like that “Furthermore, L. minor has also been studied, showing a high removal” 

 

Line 408: (contact L. minor showed) it should be like that “contact, L. minor showed” 

Line 412: (roots can accumulate) it should be like that “roots could accumulate” 

Line 413-414: (of 83.20%, after a 413 treatment with 5 mg/L in aqueous) it should be like that “of 83.20% after treatment with 5 mg/L in an aqueous” 

Line 416-417: (Fe and Mn in water by more than 20%, showing a capacity of being a hyperaccumulator for Fe) it should be like that “Fe, and Mn in water by more than 20%, showing a hyperaccumulator capacity for Fe” please check the meaning of my suggested sentence 

 

Line 418-419: (efficient for Fe bioaccumulation from mine effluent, and that the highest capacity of remediation occurs during the first days of experiment) it should be like that “effluent and that the highest capacity of remediation occurs during the first days of the experiment” 

Line 421-423: (In this short amount of time, all species showed a capacity to reduce solubilized Fe by at least 90% in average, which again highlights their hyperaccumulation character.) it should be like that “In this short time, all species showed a capacity to reduce solubilized Fe by at least 90% on average, again highlighting their hyperaccumulation character.” 

Line 424: (showed concentration) it should be like that “showed a concentration” 

Line 427: (potential, and cam) it should be like that “potential and can” it’s “can” not “cam” please check it properly, you need to revise your manuscript carefully and where it needs changes then musty correct it before submitting the revised version 

 

Line 428-430: (Moreover, as it can be observed from Figure 3 (a and b), the elimination pattern is similar, highlighting the fact that phytoremediation capacity is dependent on contact time.) it should be like that “Moreover, as shown in Figure 3 (a and b), the elimination pattern is similar, highlighting that phytoremediation capacity depends on contact time.” 

Line 430-431: (explained on the high tolerance of certain plant species to metals, since) it should be like that “explained by the high tolerance of certain plant species to metals since” 

 

Line 435: (environment, but) it should be like that “environment but” 

Line 437-438: (wastewaters, and if recovered they) it should be like that “wastewater, and if recovered, they” 

 

 

Line 438: (fertilizers and) it should be like that “fertilizers, and” 

Line 442: (for example through) please pay attention on the commas (,) where it needed put it, here, it should be like that “for example, through” 

Line 444: (necessary, to assure the lack of environmental pollution) it should be like that “necessary to prevent environmental pollution” 

Line 448-451: (The findings of the present study highlighted the fact that E. crassipes, L. minor and P. stratiotes present high phytoremediation yields for certain common pollutants, such as AN, phosphorous and especially for Fe and Cr, in the context of wastewaters collected from two treatment facilities in Cluj County, Romania.) it should be like that “The present study's findings highlighted that E. crassipes, L. minor, and P. stratiotes present high phytoremediation yields for certain common pollutants, such as AN, phosphorous, and especially Fe and Cr, in the context of wastewaters collected from two treatment facilities in Cluj County, Romania.” Please check the meaning of suggested sentence also. 

Line 452: (for iron and) it should be like that “for iron, and” please check the grammar properly 

 

Line 453-454: (Nevertheless, the remediation effect on nitrite and nitrate was in general less significant.) please check the grammar here, this sentence doesn’t make sense at all, please correct it. Also, I suggest you sentence here, if it’s write then put it “Nevertheless, the remediation effect on nitrite and nitrate was generally less significant.” 

Line 455: (wastewaters) please check it, whether it’s “wastewaters” or “wastewater”, please correct it 

 

Line 456: (analyte and the location.) it should be like that “analyte, and the location.” Please be carefully with sentence meaning, pay attention on commas (,) 

Line 457: (was less effective in the phytoremediation process.) it should be like that “was less effective in phytoremediation.” Please check the meaning of suggested sentence 

 

Line 462-463: (plants as bioaccumulators.) it should be like that “plants as bioaccumulation.” Please check the suggested sentence, does it meaning is the same

Author Response

Phytoremediation is the process of using plants and associated soil microbes to reduce contaminant concentrations or their hazardous effects on the environment, and this article discusses Comparative phytoremediation investigations in Cluj County, Romania. Regarding the topic worldwide, scientists work on it, and the introduction is highly thorough and extensive and provides information on it. The authors discuss the techniques employed to ascertain three well-known species in the wastewater and use different treatment methods.

But there are a few things to keep in mind. The work is appropriate for publication in the Journal of Horticulturae, but some points should be taken into consideration: 

Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! We will respond accordingly to every question/suggestion.

 

Comments and Suggestions 

Q: What's your suggestion about additional research that should be conducted using the same or different techniques and objectives? 

Additional research approaches using different or same method are suggested to underline the efficiency and the importance of wastewaters remediation through plants. Moreover, in the last decade ecological treatments of wastewater are highly recommended.

Q: In the figures, what’s your motivation for reviewers/researchers to agree with the current figure’s low values (especially figures 1 a and b)? Even if it’s not readable. How the reader will be able to understand low values (especially figures 1 a and b)? For me, these two figures are not easy to read or understand. Can you explain it in detail? Specially check figure 1 b and explain it.

 Thank you for this comment. We have considered this suggestion and we have decided to eliminate figure 1b) due to readability issues. On the other hand, we think that figure 1a) clearly shows and highlights the information mentioned in the text, adding visual value. Consequently, we have left figure 1a) in the manuscript. Moreover, as Reviewer 1 has kindly suggested, we have changed the design of the graphs to be easier to understand (removed title, added to legend, removed grid lines, added indications).

Q: Why (figure 1) has three different sections, and why you didn’t do it in a single frame (graph)? 

 We have changed the figures.

Q: Why did you use this method for wastewater treatment? What are its future and current advantages? 

In the future, a part of treated wastewater will be reused in order to replace freshwater for irrigation, industrial processes, or recreational purposes, in the first hand. In the second hand, it can also be used to maintain the environmental flow and by-products from its treatment can generate energy and nutrients.

Please pay attention to the formulas, please revise them carefully 

       We have checked all the values in the manuscript.

Please, check all the values and units in the tables and the entire manuscript.  

       We have checked all the values in the manuscript.

Here are some articles I recommend; please read it, and I hope that will be helpful for you for the revision.

Thank you for the suggestion! We have chosen one of the articles as valuable information for this manuscript (doi 10.3390/toxics10050231).

Line 25: Not “wastewaters” Please correct it “wastewater  

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 27: after the word “species” there is no need of comma (,). Please correct it. 

We have corrected it.

Line 28: (in the Cluj County in Romania,) change it into (in Cluj County in Romania) 

We have changed it.

Line 30: after the word iron put comma, like that (iron,) 

We have corrected it.

Line 31: put comma after the word (minor,) Plus focus on the entire manuscript where comma is needed please correct it.  

 Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it and verified accordingly in the entire manuscript.

Line 39: replace this words “reason why the process of” with word “so” 

We have corrected it.

Line 41: it’s not wastewaters, please correct it in the entire manuscript where it need changes, its “wastewater” 

  Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it and verified accordingly in the entire manuscript.

Line 41-42: the words (a lot of) change it into (many) 

We have changed it.

Line 42: pay attention to the commas (,) put comma after this word (detergents,) 

We have changed it.

Line 43: it’s wastewater 

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 45-47: it will be like that “Different methods are used to decontaminate wastewater, but one of the best approaches involves using low-cost, sustainable, and green technologies, such as bioremediation” 

Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 54: comma after (reason,) 

We have changed it.

Line 56: its wastewater 

We have changed it. 

Line 58: no need of the word (a) here “presents a higher” it’s like that “presents higher” 

 We have changed it.

Line 58: put “the” before “reason” like that “the reason” 

We have changed it.

Line 60: its not waters, it water 

 We have corrected it.

Line 62: please pay attention into the comma (,) its like that (for example,) 

We have changed it.

Line 64: the dissolved inorganic, its like that (dissolved inorganic) 

We have changed it.

Line 67: not rises, it’s (raises) 

 We have changed it.

Line 70: the sentence heavy metals bioaccumulators, it should be like that “heavy metals bioaccumulation” or it should be like “heavy metal bio accumulators”, please correct it 

  We have corrected it.

Line 71-73: this sentence is like that, “Among the species known for phytoremediation, some have a high potential, and some macrophytes are currently under much research attention” 

 Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 73-75: this sentence is like that “One such species is Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth, Pontederiaceae), a floating macrophyte that can absorb a wide range of pollutants from wastewater and accelerate its proliferation as a result of intense photosynthesis” 

 Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 79: of rapid development, it’s like that “for rapid development” 

 We have changed it.

Line 82: no need to write “the advantage of having”, it just like that “with a high bioremediation efficiency” 

 We have changed it.

Line 84: put comma (,) after these words “nanomaterials toxins” like that (nanomaterials, toxins,) 

 We have changed it.

Line 86: it’s not “storing”, it’s “storage” 

  We have changed it.

Line 87: it’s like this “in wetlands or stationary settings, and also,” 

 We have changed it.

Line 92: in this sentence, “the same time” put comma after the word “time” like that “the same time,” 

  We have changed it.

Line 93: please correct this word “binging” I think it’s not binging, it “binding” 

 Thank you for the observation. We have changed it.

Line 98: it’s not “in the Cluj”, it’s like that, “in Cluj”, and also no need to put comma (,) after the word “species”. Plus, the word, “wastewaters” it’s wastewater or wastewaters? 

  We have changed it. Along with wastewater in the entire manuscript.

Line 103: put comma (,) after this word, “plant material” such as, “plant material,” 

  We have corrected it.

Line 112：it’s not “of plant have”, it’s like “of the plant has” 

  We have change it.

Line 115: its not “on different dates” it’s like that “in different dates” 

We have change it.

Line 116: after the word “August” put comma (,) like that “August,” 

We have change it.

Line 116-117: please rewrite this sentence “and for time period the parameters have been analyzed at 116 an initial time, after 48 hours and after another 5 days (7 days in total)” here, I suggest, if it’s meaning is the same the put it here, like that, “and for time period the parameters have been analyzed at 116 an initial time, after 48 hours and after another 5 days (7 days in total)” 

 The sentence is as suggested.

Line 117-120: it’s should be like that, “Based on separate percentages of analyte eliminated from the tested wastewater, the results have been expressed as phytoremediation yield as an average of the three periods considered” please check it? 

 Thank you for the suggestion! We have changed it.

Line 123: it’s not “sampling of the wastewater”, it’s like that “wastewater sampling” 

 We have change it.

Line 126: no need of comma (,) after that “glass fiber filters” 

We deleted it.

Line 130-131: please rewrite this sentence, “In the study, several phytoremediation parameters have been assessed, specifically 130 AN, total nitrogen, phosphorous and two metals (Fe and Cr)” 

  We have change it.

Line 131: please pay attention on the grammar, no need of article “the” here, it’s like that “The duration of study” 

 We deleted it.

Line 132: (between 10th of May 2020 and 3rd of September 2020), it should be like that “(between the 10th of May 2020 and the 3rd of September 2020)” 

We have change it.

Line 136: it’s not “study are taken”, it’s like that “study is taken” 

We have change it.

Line 144: please check this, “nitrosopentacyanoferrate (II)” it’s nitrosopentacyanoferrate (II), or nitrosopentacyanoferrate (III)? 

We have change it to the correct name (III).

Line 152: please check where the comma is need put it, here put comma (,) after the parenthesis like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),” 

  We have changed it and for the other formulas as well.

Line 157: please check this “4-amino-benzenesulphonamide”, it should be like that, “4-amino-benzenesulfonamide” or “4-amino-benzene sulphonamide” further you check it which one is the right? 

  We have changed it to the form 4-amino-benzene sulphonamide.

Line 158: it’s not “(1-naphtyl)” pay attention to spelling, it’s like that “(1-naphthyl)” 

We have corrected it.

Line 163: of sample and blank, it’s like that “of the sample and blank,” 

We have corrected it.

Line 164: put comma (,) after parenthesis, like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),”

 We have added it.

Line 166-167: Please rewrite this sentence or check the one I suggested, if it’s meaning is same the put it. (For the determination of nitrates, the spectrophotometric assay based on 2,6- dimethylphenol has been used, according to SR ISO 7890-1: 1998 (Quality of water) it’s should be like that, “The spectrophotometric assay based on 2,6- dimethylphenol has been used for determining nitrates, according to SR ISO 7890-1: 1998 (Quality of water. Determination of nitrate content. Part 1)” 

We have corrected it.

Line 169: (sulfuric and phosphoric) put comma (,) here “sulfuric, and phosphoric 

We have added it.

Line 174: pay attention the article (the), it’s not “of sample”, it’s like that “of the sample” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 179-181: please rewrite this sentence, “The conversion of polyphosphates and organic phosphorous to orthophosphate is realized by hydrolysis with sulfuric acid, and the complete transformation is done with potassium persulfate” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 182-183: (which is reduced by ascorbic acid), it should be like that “which ascorbic acid reduces” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 188: (capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL) put comma (,) after the parenthesis like that “(capacity of 50 mL, expressed as mL),” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 192: (nitric acid in a Berghoff) it’s like that “nitric acid in Berghoff” 

We have corrected it.

Line 199: (with electrical heated) it’s should be like that “with an electrically heated” 

We have corrected it. 

Line 204: (microwave assisted) it should be like that “microwave-assisted” 

We have corrected it.

Line 205: (of sample) it’s should be like that “of the sample” 

We have corrected it.

Line 207: (In case of effervescence, the nitric acid) it should be like that “In the case of effervescence, nitric acid” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 208: (added in a 100 mL) it should be like that “added to a 100 mL” 

We have corrected it.

Line 214: ((expressed as mg/L) and) put comma (,) after parenthesis, like that “(expressed as mg/L), and” 

 We have corrected it.

Line 217-220: please rewrite this sentence “As it can be observed, the highest 217 phytoremediation yields for AN have been identified for the wastewater from Sânpaul 218 Treatment Facility, with average yields between 97 and 100% for the three plant species, 219 in both entry and evacuation waters, after a period of 7 days” 

   We have changed it.

Line 224: (which was able to eliminate) it should be like that “which eliminated” 

We have corrected it.

Line 225-227: Please rewrite this sentence (Overall, L. 225 minor showed the highest yields (in a shorter time) in comparison to the other two 226 species, as it can be observed from figure 1a)  

 We have modified it.

Line 228: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have modified that, for all the analogous tables.

Line 232: please check this “content in nitrite and nitrate ions” its “in” or “of” 

 We have modified it. 

Line 238: (but for the evacuation water) put comma (,) here like that “but for the evacuation water,” 

  We have added it. 

Line 240: (in entry water,) it should be like that “in entry water” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 241: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 232-240: this paragraph meaning is not very clear if possible hen rewrite otherwise just make the above mentioned changes 

 We have applied the above mentioned chages.

Line 246-247: (In 246 this case, E. crassipes was able to lower the nitrate content by 70 to 82%) please pay attention the grammar here, check it properly? 

  We have changed the phrase. 

Line 248: (t Facility, however in the Sânpaul Treatment Facility the) it should be like that “Facility; however, in the Sânpaul Treatment Facility, the” 

   We have changed the phrase accordingly.

Line 250: (but smaller capacity) it should be like that “but a smaller capacity” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 255: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 262: ((b) nitrite and (c)) please put the comma (,) here after the word nitrite like that “(b) nitrite, and (c)” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 267: (has been the most effective) it should be like that “have been the most effective” 

  We have changed it accordingly.

Line 271: (showing yields up to 66%.) it should be like that “showing yields of up to 66%.” 

 We have added it.  

Line 274: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 283-284: (in Table 5 and 283 Table 6, respectively.) no need for word repetition, it should be like that “presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.”  

 We have changed it. 

Line 285: (with a slightly higher) it should be like that “with slightly higher” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 288: “(with maximal yield of 58%).” It should be like that “(with a maximal yield of 58%).” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 289: (both type of waste waters) Please correct it grammar? 

  We have changed it to “the two types of wastewater”.

Line 293: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 300-302: (Even though E. crassipes was able 300 to accumulate 91% of Cr from the entry wastewater, the other yields have been much 301 lower, ranging from 68 to 82%.) please rewrite this sentence it’s meaning is not very clear 

   We have rephrased it. 

Line 302-303: (showed a similar 302 efficacy to P. stratiotes, however the) it should be like that “showed similar efficacy to P. stratiotes; however, the” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 303-305: (In a similar matter to 303 Fe remediation, Cr elimination capacities improvement with time, and consequently 304 maximal values have been reached after one week of contact for all the considered cases.) it should be like that “In a similar matter to Fe remediation, Cr elimination capacities improve with time, and consequently, maximal values have been reached after one week of contact for all the considered cases.” 

 We have changed it accordingly. 

Line 306: (wastewater samples, prior and after) it should be like that “wastewater samples before and after” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 315: please put comma (,) after Fe like that “AN, P, Fe, and Cr.” 

 We have added it. 

Line 317: (effective, nonetheless even in the case of this species the remediation yields have been higher than 70% in average.) it should be like that “effective; nonetheless, even in the case of this species, the remediation yields have been higher than 70% on average.” 

  We have changed it accordingly.

Line 323: (AN, P, Fe and Cr, after) it should be like that “AN, P, Fe, and Cr, after” 

 We have added it. 

Line 326: (Overall, the findings of the present study highlighted the fact that the examined) it should be like that “Overall, the present study's findings highlighted that the examined” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 332: (in phytoremediation of wastewaters. As pollutant,) it should be like that “in the phytoremediation of wastewater. As a pollutant,” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 337-338: (high as 50 g/kg of plant) it should be like that “high as 50 g/kg of the plant” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 339: (reported a 80.4%) it should be like that “reported an 80.4%” 

 We have changed it. 

Line 340: (have found a reduction) it should be like that “has found a reduction” 

Since there is “et al.”, we left the text with “have found”.

Line 344-345: (wastewater, after a period of 7 days. E. crassipes was observed to be less effective in this matter after only 48 hours, nonetheless L. minor) it should be like that “wastewater after a period of 7 days. E. crassipes was observed to be less effective after only 48 hours; nonetheless, L. minor” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 353-355: (efficiency, and that after one week the nitrite is released back in the medium.) it should be like that “efficiency and that after one week, the nitrite is released back into the medium.” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 358: (48% and respectively 28 to 51%). The results suggest that there is a difference in the) it should be like that “48% and 28 to 51%). The results suggest a difference in the” 

   We have changed it. 

Line 360-362: (The nitrate anions present a relatively low toxicity, however the problem is related 360 to their capacity to produce another species, such as nitrite, nitric oxide and nitroso 361 derivatives) it should be like that “The nitrate anions present relatively low toxicity; however, the problem is related to their capacity to produce other species, such as nitrite, nitric oxide, and nitroso derivatives”

  We have changed it accordingly.

Line 362: (for aquatic ecosystems) it should be like that “to aquatic ecosystems” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 362-364: (E. 362 crassipes removed 40 and 77% of nitrate after 48 hours of contact, and for the same period 363 of time P. stratiotes removed 71 and 70% of this nitrogen species.) it should be like that “E. crassipes removed 40 and 77% of nitrate after 48 hours of contact, and P. stratiotes removed 71 and 70% of this nitrogen species for the same period.” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 366: (with the results of a previous study,) please pay attention to grammar, it should be like that “to the results of a previous study,” 

  We have changed it. 

Line 369-370: (as well 369 as for the rise in cyanobacteria) it should be like that “and the rise in the cyanobacteria” 

   We have changed it. 

Line 372: (For E. crassipes the yields) it should be like that “For E. crassipes, the yields” 

    We have changed it. 

Line 376-377: (low polluting phosphorous rich) it should be like that “low-polluting phosphorous-rich” but here in this sentence you mentioned the word “wastewaters” please clarify it, it’s whether “wastewaters” or “wastewater” 

     We have changed it. 

Line 378-379: (water during a three weeks 378 period) it should be like that “water during three weeks” 

     We have changed it. 

Line 380: (phosphate up to three weeks, and after four weeks the) it should be like that “phosphate for up to three weeks; after four weeks, the” 

     We have changed it. 

Line 384: (similarly a study found a removal of) it should be like that “similarly, a study found the removal of” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 385: (E. crassipes is more efficient) please check grammar properly, it should be like that “E. crassipes are more efficient” 

     We have adapted the phrasing. 

Line 387-388: (heavy metals that are accumulated in waste waters, they present the disadvantage of being non degradable, which) it should be like that “heavy metals accumulated in wastewater, they present the disadvantage of being non-degradable, which” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 390-391: (exposure for heavy metals, showing a risk of bioaccumulation in the living organisms) it should be like that “exposure to heavy metals, showing a risk of bioaccumulation in living organisms” 

     We have changed it. 

Line 392: (wastewaters) please check it properly whether it’s “wastewaters” or “wastewater”? 

     We have changed that in the entire manuscript.

Line 394-395: (sources, however a significant quantity of Cr originates in anthropogenic 394 activities, such as electroplating, tanning, petroleum refinery and alloy industry) it should be like that “sources; however, much Cr originates in anthropogenic activities, such as electroplating, tanning, petroleum refinery, and alloy industry” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 397: (adsorption and ion exchange [45], but one of the most) it should be like that “adsorption, and ion exchange [45]. Still, one of the most” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 399-401: (capacity of accumulating heavy metals, with a 399 potential of removing 70% to 90% in a short amount of time [42], and it can absorb high 400 levels of Zn, Cr, Cu and Cd effectively) it should be like that “capacity to accumulate heavy metals, potentially removing 70% to 90% in a short time [42]. It can effectively absorb high Zn, Cr, Cu, and Cd levels” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 403: (P. stratiotes, it seems that water hyacinth has) it should be like that “P. stratiotes, water hyacinth has” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 404: (other species is more) it should be like that “other species are more” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 405: (Furthermore, L. minor has also been studied, and it showed really high removing) it should be like that “Furthermore, L. minor has also been studied, showing a high removal” 

       We have changed it. 

Line 408: (contact L. minor showed) it should be like that “contact, L. minor showed” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 412: (roots can accumulate) it should be like that “roots could accumulate” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 413-414: (of 83.20%, after a 413 treatment with 5 mg/L in aqueous) it should be like that “of 83.20% after treatment with 5 mg/L in an aqueous” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 416-417: (Fe and Mn in water by more than 20%, showing a capacity of being a hyperaccumulator for Fe) it should be like that “Fe, and Mn in water by more than 20%, showing a hyperaccumulator capacity for Fe” please check the meaning of my suggested sentence 

       We have checked and changed it. 

Line 418-419: (efficient for Fe bioaccumulation from mine effluent, and that the highest capacity of remediation occurs during the first days of experiment) it should be like that “effluent and that the highest capacity of remediation occurs during the first days of the experiment” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 421-423: (In this short amount of time, all species showed a capacity to reduce solubilized Fe by at least 90% in average, which again highlights their hyperaccumulation character.) it should be like that “In this short time, all species showed a capacity to reduce solubilized Fe by at least 90% on average, again highlighting their hyperaccumulation character.” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 424: (showed concentration) it should be like that “showed a concentration” 

      We have added it. 

Line 427: (potential, and cam) it should be like that “potential and can” it’s “can” not “cam” please check it properly, you need to revise your manuscript carefully and where it needs changes then musty correct it before submitting the revised version 

       We have corrected it. 

Line 428-430: (Moreover, as it can be observed from Figure 3 (a and b), the elimination pattern is similar, highlighting the fact that phytoremediation capacity is dependent on contact time.) it should be like that “Moreover, as shown in Figure 3 (a and b), the elimination pattern is similar, highlighting that phytoremediation capacity depends on contact time.” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 430-431: (explained on the high tolerance of certain plant species to metals, since) it should be like that “explained by the high tolerance of certain plant species to metals since” 

       We have changed it. 

Line 435: (environment, but) it should be like that “environment but” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 437-438: (wastewaters, and if recovered they) it should be like that “wastewater, and if recovered, they” 

       We have changed it.  

Line 438: (fertilizers and) it should be like that “fertilizers, and” 

      We have added it. 

Line 442: (for example through) please pay attention on the commas (,) where it needed put it, here, it should be like that “for example, through” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 444: (necessary, to assure the lack of environmental pollution) it should be like that “necessary to prevent environmental pollution” 

      We have changed it. 

Line 448-451: (The findings of the present study highlighted the fact that E. crassipes, L. minor and P. stratiotes present high phytoremediation yields for certain common pollutants, such as AN, phosphorous and especially for Fe and Cr, in the context of wastewaters collected from two treatment facilities in Cluj County, Romania.) it should be like that “The present study's findings highlighted that E. crassipes, L. minor, and P. stratiotes present high phytoremediation yields for certain common pollutants, such as AN, phosphorous, and especially Fe and Cr, in the context of wastewaters collected from two treatment facilities in Cluj County, Romania.” Please check the meaning of suggested sentence also. 

      We have changed it. The meaning of suggested sentence is the same as the previous one.

Line 452: (for iron and) it should be like that “for iron, and” please check the grammar properly 

       We have changed it. The grammar has been checked in the entire manuscript.

Line 453-454: (Nevertheless, the remediation effect on nitrite and nitrate was in general less significant.) please check the grammar here, this sentence doesn’t make sense at all, please correct it. Also, I suggest you sentence here, if it’s write then put it “Nevertheless, the remediation effect on nitrite and nitrate was generally less significant.” 

We have changed it.

Line 455: (wastewaters) please check it, whether it’s “wastewaters” or “wastewater”, please correct it 

        We have changed it in the entire manuscript.

Line 456: (analyte and the location.) it should be like that “analyte, and the location.” Please be carefully with sentence meaning, pay attention on commas (,) 

       We have changed it. The grammar has been checked in the entire manuscript.

Line 457: (was less effective in the phytoremediation process.) it should be like that “was less effective in phytoremediation.” Please check the meaning of suggested sentence 

        We have changed it.

Line 462-463: (plants as bioaccumulators.) it should be like that “plants as bioaccumulation.” Please check the suggested sentence, does it meaning is the same

       We have changed it to “bio accumulators” since this was the intended meaning.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All suggestions were accepted by the authors and are in accordance with what was requested.