The Source, Transport, and Removal of Chemical Elements in Rainwater in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The topic of the manuscript entitled “The source, transport, and removal of chemical elements in rainwater in China” is quite interesting. However, some issues need to be improved and expanded. Please find some details below.
1. There is no reference in the introduction to review articles published by other authors. Please analyze other reviews of rainwater composition in the world and on this basis justify the relevance of the topic raised in the manuscript. It should be emphasized what sets this manuscript apart from other articles in the field.
2. According to the mdpi guidelines, review articles should be prepared in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Some issues have been addressed by the authors, but some steps have not been described. Please extend especially the methods section with reference to the PRISMA guidelines.
There are many editorial errors in the manuscript. For example in lines 103-104 ("TableError! Reference source not found.") and in lines 323 and 390 (“Figure Error! Reference source not found”). What does bold font (lines 115, 117) mean? There is no reference to table 1 and figures in the text. Lines 477-478 – Please change the names to the reference number in square brackets.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
General comments:
- some formatting error in the sentences need to be corrected, e.g. Page 3, Line 103 - TableError!
- Figures provided are really nice. Well done to authors.
- use "pH" instead of PH. Double check the symbols used throughout the articles, for example, the use of comma on Page 3, Line 104-105 - recheck the comma symbols used.
- could also discuss the importance/benefit of the current review towards other regions in the world, not only China.
- For conclusion, could also add which SDGs are addressed when we are dealing with, for example, we know it is important to know about the source, transport and removal of chemical elements in rainwater, therefore, it is in agreement with UN target for SDG6 on "clean water and sanitation"
- Overall, the scientific content seems appropriate throughout the article, however, final English proofreading is highly recommended for further improvement of the article quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This is a review paper that focuses on the rainwater and its nutrients/pollutants in China. The paper provides information about different nutrients, its trend in different cities in China and around the world.
I have two main comments to the authors:
1. The main table in the paper contains a lot of reviews and information. However, the discussion on it is mainly in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, which appears to be insufficient for a review paper. With so many cities reviewed, the authors can provide more discussion on the trend of ions among different cities, the reasonings behind with supported literature. This will add value to the paper.
2. Section 3.3 on the transport is mainly descriptive. It does not contain information such as examples of nutrients transported by various ways (e.g., Calcium ion is shown to be transported by …). Purely descriptive content is not sufficient for a review paper. Considering that “transport” appears in the title and also claimed to be one of the contribution of the paper, the authors need to include more critical content to the transport section.
Other comments:
The last paragraph before the Conclusion session talks about the transport, but provides no solution to it. If it is intended for future work, the paragraph can be revised to say so.
Most tables and figures in the papers referred in the text contain errors. Please check.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The study investigates the source and removal of chemical elements in rainwater. The subject is very important and the study is valuable in terms of water resources but the novelty of the study is emphasized insufficiently. Some suggestions and comments to the authors are presented below:
1. Keywords should be ordered A to Z. One more keyword can be added as “China”.
2. A basic flow chart of the suggested methodology should be added. Thus, the readers can easily follow application procedures. “2. Method” is too short and weak. This part needs some improvements.
3. Check the tenses in the paragraphs. For example, there are present, present perfect and past tenses in “Abstract” …
4. Give new and last updated examples from literature about chemical elements in rainwater.
5. There are some crucial and grammatical errors. Check them all. See “Error! Reference source not found.” In line 390 …
6. Conclusions part should be improved, it is too short and weak. Main conclusions of the study should be explained well.
7. What is the novelty of the paper? It should be emphasized in the paper.
8. Statistical properties and distribution characteristics of used data should be given in the paper. For this purpose, following papers should be viewed and referenced:
Burgan, H.I., Vaheddoost, B., Aksoy, H. (2017). Frequency analysis of monthly runoff in intermittent rivers. World Environmental & Water Resources Congress (EWRI 2017), 21–25 May 2017, 327–334, Sacramento, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480625.030
Chebana, F., Ouarda, T.B. (2021). Multivariate non-stationary hydrological frequency analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 593, 125907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125907
9. The performance evaluation of the application results is missing in the study.
10. Editing of the language is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Some suggestions and comments are partially replied in the first round. Some corrections are still required as suggested below:
1. “China” should be started by capital letter in Keywords.
2. Use passive sentences. Check the sentences started by “we”.
3. Check the tenses in the paragraphs. For example, there are present and past tenses in a paragraph in “Abstract” …
4. Use same terminology for words as “precipitation” or “rainfall” in the paper …
5. There are still some small crucial errors as “Identificatio” in Figure 1 …
6. The authors accept the suggested two papers about statistical data presentation in the first revision. Then, Table 1 is added. The suggested and benefitted papers should be referenced in the paper.
7. The resolutions of the figures are very low. They should be increased. Add North arrow and scale on the maps as Figure 2.
8. The conclusions part is still looking as weak and not detailed. It can be improved.
Author Response
Thank you to the journal reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript. Below is an itemized response to your suggestions.
- The reviewer's comment：“China” should be started by capital letter in Keywords.
Answer：Modified, see line 27.
- The reviewer's comment：Use passive sentences. Check the sentences started by “we”.
Answer：The sentence "we" in the manuscript has been changed to a passive sentence, see lines 98-101 and 101-113.
- The reviewer's comment：Check the tenses in the paragraphs. For example, there are present and past tenses in a paragraph in “Abstract” …
Answer：The tense of each paragraph in the manuscript has been checked.
- The reviewer's comment：Use same terminology for words as “precipitation” or “rainfall” in the paper …
Answer：The word "precipitation" has been used in the manuscript instead of "rainfall" .
- The reviewer's comment：There are still some small crucial errors as “Identificatio” in Figure 1.
Answer：Modified, see Figure 1.
- The reviewer's comment：The authors accept the suggested two papers about statistical data presentation in the first revision. Then, Table 1 is added. The suggested and benefitted papers should be referenced in the paper.
Answer：The two articles referenced in the manuscript are cited, see line 113.
- The reviewer's comment：The resolutions of the figures are very low. They should be increased. Add North arrow and scale on the maps as Figure 2.
Answer：Figure 2 has been modified as required, see Figure 2.
- The reviewer's comment：The conclusions part is still looking as weak and not detailed. It can be improved.
Answer：The conclusion part has been improved, see lines 677-709.
Thank you for your suggestions, which made the manuscript more rigorous and which will be an important guide for my scientific work.
Your sincerely
Dandan Chen
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
I suggest accepting the manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper misses the canonical structure of the review works. The strategy adopted for the identification of the literature works analyzed is completely missing.
The paper requires a full redefinition of the structure and a clear identification of the objectives. Discussions and results from the review process need to be presented in a better-structured format.
Reviewer 2 Report
Revision of “The source, transport, and removal of chemical elements in rainwater in China” by Chen and Guo.
The manuscript simply does not take the form of a review. Notably it does not present a purpose that the review should explain, nor does it present a methodology for choosing literature that could support said purpose. As it stands now it seems a very long introduction to a topic, and nothing more.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "The source, transport, and removal of chemical elements in rainwater in China" may be interesting for readers of the Sustainability journal, but needs some adjustments.
First, the article does not identify precisely the current gaps or problems in the discussed topic.
The structure should include Methods section. Additionally, the Discussion sections is missing from the text where authors should present critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research.
Additionally, the article contains some editorial errors:
1) There are no cross-references for all figures and the table in the text (e.g. Figure 1).
2) The text has different fonts.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper under the title “The source, transport, and removal of chemical elements in rainwater in China” is current and within the scope of the Sustainability journal. However, the manuscript is prepared in a chaotic manner and many issues require clarification and improvement. Also, the structure of the manuscript is questionable. I believe the manuscript has potential. Therefore, I recommend major revisions before the publication of the manuscript.
Line numbers are missing from the text, therefore it was not possible to reference specific locations.
1. The Introduction needs to be improved. The importance and originality of the topic discussed in the manuscript should be emphasized. In other words, there should be better justification for taking up such a topic. The purpose of the paper should also be clearly defined in this section. Additionally, there is no reference in the text to other reviews on the rainwater composition. Has such a review been done before in China or other parts of the world? What is new in this manuscript? Why are the published reviews insufficient?
2. The methods is not described in the manuscript. It is not known on what basis the authors selected the publications referred to in the manuscript. Was the analysis based on articles indexed in recognized databases (eg. Web of Science, Scopus)? If so, what keywords were used? Or maybe it was based on other materials? Which years were included in the analysis? All steps taken to write the manuscript should be described in detail.
3. The authors limited the manuscript to summarizing other publications. There is no discussion in the text. The potential reader has not been informed why this manuscript was even created and what conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the cited works. Please also write what are the limitations of the review presented. A general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence should also be provided, as well as the implications for future research.
4. The authors use lumped references in several places (e.g. [1,2,7-13], [1,10,11,15-20], [7,21-23], [28,32-34], [87-90], [98-101-105]). Please avoid citing more than three items in one place. The indicated text fragments should be rewritten.
5. Section 2 – “According to some reports (…)” – What reports? Please add the relevant references.
6. In section 2, the authors refer to Table 1. However, Table 1 is not included in the manuscript. There is Table 2 in Section 2.2, which is not referenced in the text. There are also inaccuracies when referring to figures.
7. On what basis is the information in Table 2 arranged? How were the publications referenced in it been selected? The manuscript covers China and some of these publications cover other countries. Why these and not others? The last sentences of subsection 2.2 also apply to other countries, however this inclusion is not fully explained. Rather, it should be in the missing discussion section and it should be much wider. In addition, the country name is missing from some lines in the table.
8. List of References requires updating and considering the latest publications on the topic under consideration. The authors did not include any publications from 2022, only two from 2021, three from 2020. Most of the publications cited are relatively old.
9. Manuscript formatting should follow the mdpi guidelines. For example, in section 3.1 the authors use different fonts!
