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 authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. This manuscript is ready for publication after a minor check for word sliding in some tables.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
Please follow the recommendations by provided by the reviewers carefully.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Kindly see the attachment for comments.
Kindly see the attachment for comments.
Kindly see the attachment for comments.
Kindly see the attachment for comments.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The manuscript titled a review of research progress on the remediation of Tph-contaminated soil using bio stimulation gives a broad and comprehensive review of progress on the different methods of bio stimulation showcasing the success, challenges, and future perspectives. The article is well written and detailed.
I commend the authors for the extensive compilation of field review data.
Meanwhile, I have noted few corrections which should be improved upon before acceptance.
In section 2.1: added NNH4NO3 and KH2PO4 ......., the sentence is incomplete and comprehension would be difficult by your audience.
The scientific community describes 100/10/1 as an ideal ratio......, Comment: there should be citation to back this sentence up.
In section 3.3.1: M.sativa and L.corniculatus... M.albus etc. Comments:These and many more in this section are names of microorganisms and it is a standard rule that names of microorganisms must be italicized when writing. Generic names of microbes has to be writing in full with the species name in the first instance when they appear in a sentence. Example: Escherichia coli
When used in a sentence can be writing further as E.coli.
In section 5, line 9: and will not cause secondary pollution. Comments: There are some bio stimulating agents that can equally cause some level of secondary pollution if not well managed during remediation.I suggest you change the language to 'and reduces the chances of causing secondary pollution.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "A review of research progress on the remediation of Tph-contaminated soils using biostimulation methods". Your work addresses a relevant and timely topic within soil bioremediation, and your comprehensive literature review encompassing recent studies adds valuable insights to the field. However, I would like to offer some constructive suggestions for revision that could significantly enhance the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of your manuscript before I forward your manuscript to the reviewers.
While your review effectively summarizes the findings across numerous studies, incorporating a meta-analytical component or statistical evaluation of the effects sizes (e.g., TPH removal efficiencies) would strengthen your conclusions. A quantitative synthesis can help to objectively compare outcomes, assess variability, and provide a more robust evidence base for practitioners and researchers.Incorporation of Quantitative Synthesis is required.
Your discussion covers microbial mechanisms and treatment strategies; however, integrating perspectives from ecology, genetics, and engineering could provide a more holistic view. For example, emphasizing molecular microbial responses, genetic adaptations, or novel engineering techniques can deepen the understanding of biostimulation processes and foster innovation.Broader Multi-Disciplinary Integration is required.
Given the rapid development in bioremediation technologies, consider discussing recently emerging approaches such as nanotechnology applications, genetic modification of microbial strains, or advanced monitoring systems. This inclusion would make your review more current and forward-looking. Inclusion of emerging technologies and recent advances is required.
Further elaboration on specific microbial communities, functional genes, or biofilm dynamics involved in TPH degradation can add valuable mechanistic insights. Such details could appeal to researchers aiming to optimize biological processes at the molecular level.
Your suggestions regarding field-scale applications are valuable. Enhancing this section with detailed guidance on scaling up, cost considerations, risk management, and policy implications would increase the practical relevance of your review for industry professionals and policymakers.Practical and policy-oriented recommendations are required.
Addressing how geographic factors such as climate, soil type, and regional contamination sources influence biostimulation strategies could broaden the applicability of your conclusions. Including case studies or regional comparisons would strengthen this aspect.Consideration of spatial and regional variability is required.
While your manuscript outlines future research directions, providing specific, actionable recommendations—such as standardized protocols, monitoring frameworks, or interdisciplinary collaboration pathways—would make this section more impactful. Clarification and expansion of future directions are required.
Finally, please review the manuscript for clarity, coherence, and consistency in terminology and presentation, ensuring that the narrative effectively guides readers through your comprehensive synthesis.Ensuring language clarity and structure is required.
In summary, your manuscript has the potential to make a substantial contribution to the field by integrating these suggested enhancements. I encourage you to refine your work with these points in mind, supporting your conclusions with quantitative analyses and providing detailed practical guidance to researchers and practitioners alike.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution. I look forward to your revised manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please note that this submission has only been reviewed by the Academic Editor at this point. Once you have addressed their comments, it will still need to be sent out for peer review.
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.