Macroplastics in the Bottom of the Veracruz Reef System National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this article and express my opinion. Here are my most important observations.

In the INTRODUCTION section, a wide review of all knowledge about plastic in water was made. However, the research gap to be filled by this article was not identified. The purpose of the research is not precisely formulated and not justified. Why was this particular area identified for such research? Was the sole rationale that it is naturally valuable? What was the actual area of the observation and sampling area? On what basis was the distance of 15.5 km determined, which referred to the study area? After all, km is not a unit of area but a measure of length. The article included a number of photos, most of which do not serve to document particularly relevant facts, but lacked a map with the location of the study area. The whole concept of the study would have required a more extensive and precise description.

Lines 180-183 state: "Subsequently, the distance traveled by the macroplastic from the surface to the depth at which it was found was calculated in order to trace the route that the macroplastic probably followed." This mentions the "probability" on which the modeling was based. And what is the probability of error with such modeling of the phenomenon described? Please point out the weaknesses of the chosen research concept.

Figures 7 - 12 show a simulation of the route taken by the macroplastic. Colored lines are drawn, which are most likely a visualization of this route. My guess is that their course is supported by precise calculations. However, there is no mention of this. Thus, this model cannot be verified. Thus, the whole concept of the research and the scientific nature and reliability of this simulation are easily undermined and questionable. The culmination of the results in subsection 3.6 is the authors' vision expressed by the diagram (Figure 13).

The DISCUSSION chapter needs repair. Currently, it is more of a summary of the results. On the other hand, CONCLUSION is not a reflection of DISCUSSION, which indicates the weakness of the article in the context of its scientific nature. At the same time, the CONCLUSION section should convince the reader that the study met its intended goals. The problem is that the objectives were not formulated at the beginning of the article.

In summary, currently the article has the character of an inventory of macroplastic pollution of a selected water area. Anyway, this is well reflected in the title of the article. On the other hand, calling the results of this inventory a theoretical distribution model is overstated.

General comment - the article was not prepared very carefully and needs many corrections, including:

1) Lack of numbering of subsections in the DISCUSSION section

2) A broken sentence in line 402

3) Lack of consistency in citing literature in the text. Up to line 51, numbering based on the order of authors in the REFERENCES was used. Later, this system was abandoned. As a result, the REFERENCES list is disordered. This makes it impossible to conduct a reliable literature review.

4) A broken sentence in lines 492 - 494.

5) In lines 501-501 and 534-536 there are fragments of text in a language other than English. I do not know what is written there.

Author Response

Reviewer 1's input is important and appreciated. We worked on the INTRODUCTION according to your comments, it was expanded, a map of the study area is attached.

It is marked in red to identify the changes.

The figures of 7-11 as I observe were adapted to be specific.

The discussions and conclusions were taken up for repair. The conclusions were worked on according to the objective, which was clearly attached, as recommended by the evaluator and should be indicated at the beginning.

The lines in general were revised, but specifically from 402 to 536, to improve the wording and the language was taken care of.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigates the primary category of macroplastics present on the sea floor of the Veracruzan Reef System National Park. Additionally, it examines the distribution and concentration of macroplastics within the reef system's bottom and any related factors that influence these findings. Upon careful review of this paper, several issues must be addressed before publication.

1. In the Discussion section, there are excessive instances of repeated illustrations in the second paragraph (lines 399-405). Therefore, it is recommended to simplify the second paragraph of the Discussion section to enhance clarity and conciseness.

2. In the sampling process, was the time interval for sample collection randomized? Is there a rationale for the timing of the sample collection outlined in the article? Additionally, are there significant environmental factors that influenced the sample collection process? Furthermore, photographic records were taken of larger specimens or those that could have an impact on the reef after removal. Are there any data errors present in these sample records?

3. Regarding the pie chart presented in Figure 3, there is a discrepancy between the description provided in the article (lines 195-196) and the proportions illustrated in the figure itself.

4. How can we evaluate the comprehensiveness of the sample collection in this study? Furthermore, in comparison to other literature, what are the standout features and implications that readers can glean from this work?

5. Table 4 includes information on size that may be confusing for readers. Please provide a detailed explanation to clarify this matter.

6. If the sampling site were to shift to a coral reef environment, would the type and proportion of plastics detected differ significantly from those observed in this study? Additionally, can the theoretical model established for the distribution and concentration of macroplastics in reef bottoms be applied to other coral reef sampling sites?

7. The formatting throughout the manuscript should be consistent. Furthermore, particular attention should be paid to correcting errors in the formatting of secondary headings, line spacing, paragraph indentation, proper use of punctuation and capitalization.

Author Response

We appreciate your comments, the Discussions section has been addressed to improve its clarity and the second paragraph you refer to.

The sampling process and its justification in the collection are detailed. Photographic evidence of the impact in the study area is attached as requested.

Clarifications are made of the sampling process and as justified. In the collection of samples reference is made to the contribution of this work.

The congruence of the lines of text with the figures that are described was made, the same with Table 4.

 

It comments on how the environment influences with respect to the type and proportion of plastics and how to apply it to other sampling sites.

Special attention was paid to correcting errors in the format of secondary headings, line spacing, paragraph indentation, proper use of punctuation, and capitalization.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper because there are not a lot of studies reporting the macoplastics. However, there are a lot of grammar errors in this version and the paper is lengthy and didn’t have a focus. The author should make a major revison.

Mains:

Line 20: Please unify the writing of microplastic.

Line 25-27: It’s hard to read this sentence “It is possible… to hydrodynamics”

Line 32-34: Please add the reference.

Line 151: What does le-yes mean?

Line 174: Please check this sentence.

Line 185: What does the north mean here?

Line 203-204: Where are the zones?

Line 212: I cannot get the information from Table 3. If the authors want to say they found these in the areas in Table 3, they can put the Table 3 behind the “…different areas” in line 211.

Table 4: What is the grampin?

Line 277: Where is the Table 11?

Line 283: Please check this sentence.

Line 402-405: This sentence is same with the one in Line 399-402.

Line 409: It should be “On the one hand”.

Line 420: Please add the reference.

Line 423: Please add the reference.

Line 424-432: The authors should reconstruct this paragraph. What most of macroplastics in oceans are from terrestrial sources is not conflicted with that the finding in this study. In some specific area like having a lot of aquatic activities, the aquatic contamination is the main source of macroplastics.

Line 442: What dose the functio mean?

Line 462: What is this?

Line 469-471: Please add the reference.

Line 490-492: Please add the reference.

Minors:

Line 34: In contrast,

Line 36: It should be “.” between the two sentences.

Line 110: It should be “is”, not “are”.

Line 113: It should be “is”, not “are”.

Line 115: Remove “.” between control and of.

Line 121: entanglement or entanglement?

Line 235: Of

Line 408: However, microplastic

Line 465: which which?

Line 488: Full name of PET

Line 494: Low

Author Response

Your comments were provided, which resulted in a better quality document, your contribution is appreciated.

The wording of concepts such as the northern words, laws, grampin was improved.

The areas were improved in the wording and in the figures

Paragraphs of the lines of the 400 were reconstructed until the end of the document.

References added.

The minor corrections of the lines that you comment were made

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes and corrections made have significantly improved the quality of the article. I read it with pleasure. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carefully revised the paper, and it could be accepted now.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in this version.