The present work is a modeling investigation on the relationship between velocity, magnetic field, thermal profiles of a Maxwell fluid containing suspended nanoparticles and microorganisms on a stretching sheet. Results are solved numerically by using classical forth order Runge-Kutta (RK-4) method and are compared to the Newtonian fluid case.

Major comments to address for consideration of publication are as follows:

1. The Introduction section reports a well structured literature on each part of the modeling system. The Authors emphasize the lack of a more comprehensive study on the effects of several factors (i.e., Stefan Blowing, bio-convection, chemical reaction, etc.) in Maxwell nanofluids on a stretching sheet. However, a reasoning explaining why it is important to study such a complex fluid is missing. For instance, what potential application may be. Unless the reader starts reading most of the references which is quite time consuming;
2. Related to Comment 1., it is not clear to me the actual function of nanoparticles in addition to ferromagnetic particles;
3. In the nomenclature list table the definition of eta and Nb symbols are missing, even in the main text;
4. The numerical method employed in this work is not either described or linked to a reference;
5. Mathematical formulation needs a brief description of each condition and assumption employed in the modeling. Moreover, naming equations of the model is highly recommended (section 2.2). For instance, Equation of continuity: du/dx + dv/dy =0 (1);
6. In the boundary conditions, it is specified that microorganism concentration Nw is assumed and no info is given for Nc. Is there any relationship between these two boundary condition values of concentration? Any assumption?
7. The solutions of representative model equations are not clearly linked to their original equations when listed;
8. What does -f"(0) represent in the model description?
9. In the Results and Discussion section, it is not clear if the flow field comprises both axial and radial velocity profiles, or just one of them. Please explain;
10. The words profile and gradient are used as interchangeable. This is not correct: A profile describes the values of a variable along a direction, whereas a gradient represents the derivative of a variable along the same direction (i.e., the rate of change). Variable profiles and gradients cannot always be described in the same way. Thus, the results description is confusing sometimes;
11. In the Results and Discussion section, the description of results related to engineering dimensionless parameters lacks of better discussion on the observed phenomenological effects. This is given only in the Conclusions section.
12. Supplementary Figures were not available for Reviewers.

Minor comments

1. Page 3: Meaning of "exotic" lubricants;
2. In the Results and Discussion section the name of variables and parameters followed by their symbol are missing forcing the reader to go back and forth to the nomenclature table. Just writing the variable/parameter name only once in the main text is enough;
3. More descriptive caption for Figure 1;
4. Some words are repeated too many times, such as "sturdily", giving copy/paste style to the main text.