Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Risk Assessment of Antibiotic in the Aquatic Environment in China Nationwide, A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript addresses the problem of antibiotic contamination in aquatic environment in China nationwide. The author took the challenging issues for their mini - review articles. The data’s present in the manuscript was not well organized and lack of appropriate analysis. Stacking data and redundant description bring understanding difficulties for reader.  I suggest the corresponding author to do a serious reading before submitting a manuscript.

 

1. In abstract, Please add quantitative results and provide appropriate reasoning.
2. Keywords should be five , not more than that.
3. Introduction part is not clear, needs more explanation  and add the significant goal of your research.
4. Author should include the possible solutions for antibiotic pollution in aquatic regions.
5. Figure 1, legend part avoid the typo errors ( for examples, northeaetern instead of northeastern).
6. Figure 2 & 3 is not clear, use the selective antibiotic(more cause of contamination) for the data( don’t add too many, it confuses the readers), if necessary other data’s add in supplementary section.
7. [Experimental results and discussion ] all figures in the section should be rechecked seriously and refined. For example, scale bar and error bar is necessary.
8. List of abbreviations: A lot of abbreviations appear in the text. In order to understand the content of the manuscript more clearly, I suggest adding a list of abbreviations to the manuscript
9. Figure 2 , x axis title “ sampling time” is not matching,  its decades ago change the title.
10. Add the equation number for used formula’s in section 3.4
11. Avoid the typo errors and unnecessary space in the written manuscript.
12. Authors must need to incorporate future prospective of the presented work in the conclusion part of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

   We are extremely grateful to your careful review on our manuscript. Your comments inspired us to think more deeply and creatively. According your suggestions, we combed the paper again and made serious amendments. At the same time, we also highlighted the innovation of the manuscript according to the current research progress. A detailed point-by-point response is attached below.

  Thank you very much again for your suggestions, any further information or suggestion is greatly appreciated. We would appreciate it if you reconsider our paper and expect that the content of the revised introduction will meet the requirements of the Sustainability.

Respectfully yours

Dr. Nan Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article describe the status of antibiotics pollution in selected area in China.

The article is well written and timely. Although the contents are sufficient, an additional section of perspective or future trends need to be included just before the conclusion section. This section is very helpful in providing insight towards controlling and remediation of the antibiotics.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

   Thank you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript. We are so pleased to know that you recognized our work and potential significance of our manuscript. It is very important for us. According to your suggestion, we have rewritten the conclusion and added the future prospects in the section 4. And any further information or suggestion is greatly appreciated. We hope that this revised version is satisfactory to you.

Respectfully yours

Dr. Nan Li

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 The Authors reviewed an abundance of open peer-reviewed literatures on antibiotic in the natural aquatic environment and WWTPs in China. A total of 79 antibiotics were de-tected at least once in aquatic environment, with concentrations ranged from ng L^-1 to μg L^-1 level. The total annual average concentration in the BS area is more than doubled that in the YS, and nearly three times higher than that in the YRB and the PRB. This research provides an overview of the current situation of antibiotic pollution in China, as well as a detailed risk assessment of several common antibiotics. The regional distribution of antibiotics was determined using the mean or median measured environmental concentrations calculated by one or several data sources for each water matrix.

 

The description of the work is acceptable. Overall impression is that this manuscript can be recommended for publication after MAJOR revision in Sustainability especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. However, I would like to point out to several details:

 

1. Underscore the scientific value added of your paper in your abstract. Please look at articles we have published for models. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article. This should be corrected.
2. It is not clear what novelty in paper worth to publish is? Correct this.
3. The data of methods that include in this paper is dependent on the matrix. That effect is very important in the real samples but the authors did not explain the effect of the matrix. Correct and explain this.
4. Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to are. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions. This should be corrected.
5. English language should be corrected by a professional lector. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

I wish a lot of success to the authors in making this manuscript much better.

With kind regards!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and making many thoughtful comments. According to the suggestions, we have carefully revised the whole manuscript to address your comments. A detailed point-by-point response is attached below.

Thank you very much again for your kind offer, any further information or suggestion is greatly appreciated. We hope that this revised version is satisfactory to you.

Respectfully yours

Dr. Nan Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the manuscript is improved well.

Please remove the abbrevations from keywords (Don't forget to remove it).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    Thank you very much for another opportunity to improve our manuscript. We have removed all the abbreviations in the Abstract according to your suggestion. We appreciate all you did for our manuscript improvement, and here we express our heartfelt thanks and sincere wishes. We would appreciate it if you could consider our article publishing in the Sustainability.

Thanks for your efforts to carefully review our manuscript.

Respectfully yours

Dr. Nan Li

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Interesting results are well presented. The description of the work is acceptable. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. Discussion and conclusion is detailed. In my opinion this manuscript can be PUBLISH in Sustainability especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. The authors correct all suggestions that reviewers gave about article.

 I wish a lot of success to the authors.

Regards!

Reviewer 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for recognizing our work and acknowledging our revised manuscript. We appreciate all you did for our manuscript improvement, and here we express our heartfelt thanks and sincere wishes.

If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully yours

Dr. Nan Li