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.
Dear authors, your manuscript is now ready for publication. Thanks for taking into account all reviewers comments and suggestions.
Dear author can you check the problems with the cited references indicated by reviewer 1? Thanks
There are still wrong citations. The authors should carefully check the citations one by one co confirm they match the cited references.
L69: Ming, 2009 is wrong citation. Provide the detailed information of this reference (L268-269). Find the paper and read it.
Avellan et al., 2017 is also a wrong citation, which studied gold nanoparticles, not microplastics.
Good.
Good
The authors have responded acceptably to my comments. The main problems with the manuscript have been resolved. The results are interesting and, if the editor or another reviewer has no objections, suitable for publication.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Dear authors both reviewers and I found your work interesting. Please have a look at their comments and answer all of them. Concerning the changes proposed by reviewer 1 on substitution of some references: Please check carefully if those suggestions are correct and fix those that do not refer to your statements/results. You can add some of the suggested references and keep also those that you consider appropriate.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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. #]
The authors studied the Accumulation and transfer of microplastics in Solanum nigrum seedlings. Although the experimental design is simple, the study provide some interesting findings. I recommend major revisions before considering its acceptance.
Title: Only PS MPs were studied, which should be clarified in the title.
L32: add space in “andweretransferred”; check the whole manuscript.
L51: “Kv et al., 2022“” was not found in references.
L56-57: The effects of MPs in soil-plant systems have been well summarized in several reviews, which may be better to support your statement. I suggest replace (Jiang et al., 2019; Bouaicha et al., 2022a) with the reviews below:
Wang, F., Feng, X., Liu, Y., Adams, C. A., Sun, Y., & Zhang, S. (2022). Micro (nano) plastics and terrestrial plants: Up-to-date knowledge on uptake, translocation, and phytotoxicity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185, 106503.
Wang, F., Wang, Q., Adams, C. A., Sun, Y., & Zhang, S. (2022). Effects of microplastics on soil properties: current knowledge and future perspectives. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 424, 127531.
L57-59: The recitations need to be updated. Here you only cite a reference on the Accumulation of plastics in aquatic food webs. What about plants and soil animals? I recommend two references. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2022, 185, 106503. Wang, et al. (2022). Interactions between microplastics and soil fauna: a critical review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 52(18), 3211-3243.
L69: “Maity et al., 2021” is a wrong citation, which focused on “Functional interplay between plastic polymers and microbes”.
L68-69: there have been many studies on plant uptake of MPs, see Review: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2022, 185, 106503.
L72: remove “,”
L162-163: (Huffer, Weniger & aHofmann et al., 2018) is a wrong citation, which studied “Sorption of organic compounds by aged polystyrene”. Also check Tourinho et al., 2019
L164: Lian et al., 2020 “found that the presence of PSNPs could partially reduce Cd contents in leaves and alleviate Cd toxicity to wheat”. Please check if this reference support your opinion.
L166: there are two references by Li et al., in 2019 (L241, L249), which one is cited here? You may mark them as 2019a and 2019b.
L161-167: this paragraph tells readers why you conduct this study, which can be moved to Introduction.
L231: Advanced Science, 9(33), 2202336.
L263: correct “cd” as “Cd”
Simple, but acceptable.
New and interesing.
major revisions.
Zhang et al. presents a work entitled “Accumulation and transfer of microplastics in Solanum nigrum seedlings” in which they investigated the transference of polystyrene beads (microplastics) from soil to plant tissues. The results were obtained by confocal laser scanning and scanning electron microscopy of the plant tissues.
The article is short and concise. The writing is clear, unambiguous, and technically correct. The structure of the article has an acceptable format. Introduction has sufficient background with novel literature.
The figures and tables should be improved. Some recommendations to take into account are: 1) add the number of replicates used when applicable in the table/figure caption; 2) add the size of scale bars when applicable in the figure caption; 3) in figures with images add the microscopy technique and observation conditions in the figure caption, each figure should be understood without the rest of the manuscript; 4) in figures with images add legends (with arrows if necessary) to indicate the different parts/tissues of the plant sample shown, it could be a useful piece of information; 5) I also recommend adding at the top of each column a brief identifying name for each set of results (in figures with images).
Research objective is clear in lines 78-80. The methods are well described. I think that the experimental design is acceptable, however I am concerned about the limited number of biological replicates.
Observing the green fluorescence was difficult for me (Figs. 4-6). I recommend increasing the brightness to facilitate this task. Please indicate in the figure caption if you modify the brightness and save the native files of these images in the supplementary material.
The discussion is of sufficient quality with novel literature.
A possible typo was detected:
- Line 77 “isused toremediate” -> “isused to remediate”
- Line 165 “S. solanum is a” -> “S. nigrum is a”
- Line 177 “S. nigrumis a strong” -> “S. nigrum is a strong”
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.