Physicochemical Properties and Environmental Effects of Suspended Sediment Particles in the Largest Freshwater Lake, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript titled “Physicochemical properties and environmental effects of suspended sediment particles in the largest freshwater lake”, the Authors studied the changes in the physicochemical properties of Suspended sediment particles (SSP) samples from Poyang Lake (China).
For the topic under discussion, this manuscript is appropriate to Sustainability and the impact factor of the journal (IF: 3.889). The study is very interesting, well argued in all sections and the results are essential for revealing the intrinsic relationship between SSP physicochemical properties and lake eutrophication and studying other water-sediment interface processes of lake pollutants and providing a renewed scientific basis for endogenous pollution in shallow lakes to be effectively controlled and managed.
Therefore, my final opinion is to accept the paper with minor revision.
Minor points:
Lines 143: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
Lines 171: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
Lines 171-172: the authors stated that “It was similar to the outcome of the studies by [47, 48] and others”. “Others?” to whom do the authors refer?
Lines 189: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
Lines 198-200: I suggest to add some references at the end of the sentence “This region was a stagnant area, influenced less by the influent sediment (mainly from Rao River and Fu River) and weak hydrodynamic conditions, so the particle size variation was minor in scope.”.
Lines 207: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
Line 223-225: the authors stated that “By SEM-EDS qualitative analysis, it was known that the material phase 223 composition of sediment particles in the region has remarkable similarity, yet differs in 224 their relative contents. They say that “it was known”, so I suggest to add some references to support this statement.
Lines 306: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
Lines 319: There’s something wrong. Please, correct it.
1. References section: According to guidelines for Authors “References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work: for example 1) Journal Articles: 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range. Therefore, I suggest to correct references in the References Section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study’s results help deepen the insight into the behavior of sediment particles in lake-stream and the migration and transformation of particles to pollutants, providing a renewed scientific basis for endogenous pollution in shallow lakes to be effectively controlled and managed. It is recommended that the paper be published after minor modifications
1) Regarding the topic, it is recommended to modify it and add a scope limit.Poyang Lake is the first freshwater lake and the second largest lake in China. Is it more accurate to add "China" to the title. it can be discussed, but it's also good to not modify it.
Physicochemical properties and environmental effects of suspended sediment particles in the largest freshwater lake, China
Physicochemical properties and environmental effects of suspended sediment particles in Poyang Lake
2) “Error! Reference source not found.”There are 3 similar errors in the full text, please correct them. P143, P171,P1893) The font in some is too small and needs to be adjusted.
Figure 4 .aComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please solve this problem "(Error! Reference source not found.d). I have seen it in few places through the text.
Author Response
Please solve this problem "(Error! Reference source not found.d). I have seen it in few places through the text.
Sorry for the carelessness. We have changed them on page 4, line 153; page 5, line 181, line 198 and line 216; page 8, lines 314-315 and page 9, line 328.
Reviewer 4 Report
Kindly find the attached file for the reviewer's comments and improvement suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This manuscript aims to study the distribution patterns of morphology and elements of suspended sediment particles in Poyang Lake. In this study, the authors attempted to analyze the driving mechanisms behind their differences and assess their effects on the phosphorous states.
Generally, this study meets the scope of the journal. The topic is interesting and the data is sufficient and referential for similar research fields. Therefore, this paper has publishable value. But some vague points need to be performed, I choose moderate revision. Detailed comments are as follows:
Moderate Comments:
1. Abstract. Although you listed the major findings and data of the study, the brief narrative of the core views of this paper is not shown.
2. Introduction. The section on the background of the research on suspended sediment matters is excessive, and the authors should emphasize the need for their research.
3. Section 3.2, Line 237-240. What is the relationship between fine particles and Fe/Al elements? Is it just an adsorption relationship? Related references should be added to support the basis.
4. General. Avoid terms like easily in Line 269. They have no scientific meaning.
5. Reducing adjectives with subjectivity and expressing them in comparative or concrete data. Avoid terms that are not well defined, like “little correlation” in Line 308-311.
6. Section 4, Language expression still needed to be precise. Line 346-348, “As the primary… in Poyang Lake.” This sentence has an ambiguous expression and needs to be rewritten.
Minor Comments:
7. Line 14, the meaning of the mathematical symbols given could not be understood without reading the paper. Please give more explanation or description in other forms.
8. Section 2.1, you need to add references to the sentences where the numbers are cited in Line 88-91.
9. Line 113, reference citation format needs to be corrected.
10. Line 240 and Line 352, “in the SSP” and ”of the SSPs” should be “in SSP” and “of SSP”.
11. Line 263 and Line 266, decide which expression “r1, r2, …” or “r1, r2, …”?
12. Check the figures. The aspect ratio and font size of the figures should be adjusted to improve overall readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
