All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper has been improved after revision and is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No
NO
NO
No comments
No comments
No comments
No comments
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful.
Conclusions are well stated
Please incorporate all comments of reviewers and also submit the point-to-point response letter. Moreover, the language of the paper needs revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The manuscript reports a study carried out on some plants species naturally growing in a location exposed to industrial effluents in Pakistan. This study is valid to identify pollution stress and tolerant species to these pollutants.
A reference update is needed in the fifth paragraph under heading "Introduction".
Provide further details in subheading ‘Climatic condition’ in "Materials and Methods."
The sentence in "Results" (water analysis) line NO. 4 needs to be fixed grammatically. Line No. 5 (as 21.03 as) in the third paragraph contains a grammatical error; "as" should be removed.
There is a reference in the fifth paragraph of the results that needs updating.
The final statement under the heading "Comparison of mean of metals among Three locations and Four seasons" has to be corrected.
The reference in the first paragraph of the heading "Soil analysis" should be updated.
There has to be a sentence adjustment in the fourth paragraph, line 8.
The word heavy metal needs to be spelt correctly in the first line of the heading "Metals in Plant Components." Remove word “as” from the whole paragraph.
In third paragraph of “Metal Transfer Factor of four plants” under study last line use word “showed” instead of “shows”.
The experimental site consists of 9 contaminated sites (500 m near the polluted region) and 1 pollution free area (14 km far from the polluted region). The study needs a few more soil analysis references that carried out in study area.
The study report that naturally grown plants were selected form the 10 areas. However, the authors do not report whether the plants were of the same age. different growth stages could have different capabilities for tissue and organ expansion, regardless of the contaminating effects of industrial effluents.
No comments
No comments
No comments
The paper includes sufficient data However the followings require attention and revisions.
English in general needs some grammatical corrections like,
Introduction:
1. Sentence and grammar correction at “It was therefore concluded that
textile effluents were highly polluted (Imtiazuddin et al., 2012).
2. Spelling error ‘Studies showed that Cr accumulation in Calotropis procera’
3. Second last paragraph need spelling correction‘(Farahat & Galal, 2018)’.
Materials and Methods:
1. Experimental sites the first sentence is not according to data studies.
2. Few punctuation errors in ' experimental design and statistical analysis
Results:
(A) Water analysis
1. bicarbonate was present at Paharang drain as 21.03 needs grammatical corrections.
2. last paragraph line four determiners are missing at 'highest' and 'drain'
(B) Soil analysis
1. Possible spelling mistakes in the first paragraph of the soil analysis
2. Reference (Ogundiran et al., 2012) should be updated.
3. In the second paragraph the word change should b be replaced by word changes.
4. Add some recent references in the last paragraph of the soil analysis.
5. CCA abbreviation is not mentioned in the above-listed abbreviations.
Discussion:
1. In the second paragraph ' the studied water spelling mistake, and grammatical mistakes in the third line as well.
2. Check the reference Farid et al. (2013), correction is required.
3. Possible missing commas in the conclusion need attention.
Overall, the article provides relevant information on pollution, industrial effluents in rivers along heavy metals and their impacts on riparian vegetation. Results provide high effort to get data to combine heavy metal content in water soil and plant, which needs to be appreciated.
The research design is appropriate but has some minor grammatical mistakes which we mentioned above that should be addressed.
No comments
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
Abstract
a. In the abstract, the last sentence structure needs improvement and should be “The majority of chosen plants were phytoaccumulator” instead of “ It was discovered that the majority of chosen….
2. Introduction
a. Introduction 2nd paragraph 1st line:..Textile... should be.... The textile,...
b. Not good to write “Water pH and metal solubility increased, and the metal particles become more mobile”. The sentence structure needs improvement.
c. Spelling errors in 2nd last paragraph, the word “like “needs replacement.
3. Materials and Methods
a. “Ten sites (Nine polluted and 1 pollution free) were selected to study the anatomical and morphological parameters of some dominant species” should be replaced.
b. In the last paragraph, please check the spelling “randomized”.
4. Results
a. It is better to mention the table or figure at the end of each paragraph, immediately next to the text.
b. Metals for 4 plants, but what kind of plant tissues did you measure? Please clarify.
c. “Paharang drain (Table 1) .” please check and correct.
d. Last line of the third paragraph of water analysis, “ highest amount at Ahmad wala drain. (Table 1).” Correction required.
e. Reference required in the last paragraph of “water analysis”.
f. In the "soil analysis" the last paragraph, the reference is not up-to-date.
5. Discussion
a. In 1st paragraph line 3 sentence correction is needed.
b. 2nd last paragraph line 2 the grammatical mistake is present, correction is required.
c. Spelling mistake in last paragraph 2nd line word “anova” needs correction.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.