Comprehensive Analysis and Environmental Risk Assessment of Benzotriazoles in Airport Stormwater: A HS-SPME-GC × GC-TOF-MS-Based Procedure as a Tool for Sustainable Airport Runoff Water Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for all response to comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI noticed that the author has made changes on the basis of the previous submission version, which has significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
However, there are still the following areas that can be improved:
1.line 21, full name of CV.
2. For all abbreviations in the figure, please note the full name. eg., the SPME in Figure 1.
3. The samples mentioned by the author were collected in 2012-2013. It is suggested that the author add some remarks to illustrate that these samples are still representative of the current airport environment.
4.line 352, the formula has no number
5. Figure 3b. It seems that the picture has been stretched, resulting in a very unclear image. And the vertical axis is Area? That doesn't seem right. It is recommended to optimize the picture.
6. Figure 4 is rough and some symbols are not aligned. The authors suggest methods for checking
7. Please add the values corresponding to the colors in Figure 3a
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the Reviewer's valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. All responses and explanations are included in the PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I reviewed your article and saw that some small corrections could be made to the text such as:
01- In lines 151 to 155, you can remove this paragraph, as I do not see the need to inform which area of study must later be informed in the material and method;
02- In lines 183 to 194 the authors say that water collection was carried out manually, the question I ask is couldn't rain gauges be installed to carry out this collection?;
03- I believe that a better flowchart could describe the steps of the data collection process, please insert a child with a better distribution of these collection steps;
04- In lines 616 to 619 the authors said they used the statistical methods of p<0.001, Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA, but in the material and method they do not present these methods used, put in the methodology which statistical methods were applied to the work;
05- Figures 5 should be improved as the error bars are not visible in a) b) and c), see the y-axis scale.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the Reviewer's valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. All responses and explanations are included in the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a SPME-GC × GC-3 TOF-MS Based Procedure is proposed to assess the risk of Benzotriazoles in airport stormwater. The outcome of the study will be useful for future sustainable airport runoff water management. I have several following comments before the paper can be accepted.
Major comments:
The novelty of the paper is the new proposed procedure (SPME-GC × GC-3 TOF-MS Based Procedure), and therefore the accuracy of the method should be compared with the traditional method. The authors need to address the superiority of the method over other methods.
Minor comments:
Introduction:
1. the traditional method to measure Benzotriazoles needs to be reviewed in this section.
2. The references for Figure 2 is missing.
Materials and Methods:
1. Why are only data from autumn and winter considered? No explanation.
2. For RQx formula, please note the italic and non-italic symbols need to be consistent.
Results and discussion:
1. The representation of number in y-axis in Figure 4 is not academic forms.
2. What do x-axis and y-axis mean?
3. In figure 7, the details of the sampling locations should be provided and their results should be compared to see the differences.
4. Figure 9 is only a schematic representation. Is it necessary?
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have reviewed this manuscript entitled " Comprehensive Analysis and Environmental Risk Assessment of Benzotriazoles in Airport Stormwater: A SPME-GC × GC-TOF-MS Based Procedure as a Tool for Sustainable Airport Runoff Water Management ". The topic is interesting to developing analytical protocols to identify benzotriazoles in airport runoff water samples is essential. However, the data must be rewritten and presented with the corresponding statistical analysis, including in tables and/or figures, the statistically significant differences must be specified in results and/or discussion.
The manuscript can be further considered for recommendation after the following a few comments and concerns are addressed.
1. Improve the introduction part.
2. Can you provide further details on the experimental design employed for the validation of the SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS method for the detection of Benzotriazoles in airport stormwater samples?
3. What specific criteria were utilized to optimize the SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS method for the sensitive and selective detection of Benzotriazoles?
4. How were the airport stormwater samples collected and prepared prior to analysis, and were any pre-concentration techniques employed?
5. Could you elaborate on the chromatographic conditions used for the detection of Benzotriazoles in the GC×GC-TOF-MS analysis? For example, what stationary phases and temperature programs were utilized?
6. Were any internal standards or calibration curves employed during the quantification of Benzotriazoles in the airport stormwater samples? If so, how were they prepared and utilized?
7. Can you provide insights into the detection limits and method sensitivity achieved for Benzotriazoles in the airport stormwater samples using the SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS method?
8. Were there any challenges encountered during the validation process, and if so, how were they addressed to ensure the accuracy and precision of the results?
9. Could you please share chromatograms representing the detection of Benzotriazoles in all samples analyzed, including those confirming the presence of 1H-BT, 4-MeBT, 5-MeBT, and 5,6-diMe-1H-BT?
10. How was the identification and confirmation of Benzotriazoles achieved in the chromatographic analysis, particularly concerning potential co-eluting compounds?
11. Were there any variations observed in the concentrations of Benzotriazoles among the stormwater samples collected from European airports with varying flight capacities?
12. What steps were taken to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the chromatographic data obtained from the GC×GC-TOF-MS analysis?
13. Can you discuss any potential sources of interference or matrix effects encountered during the analysis of Benzotriazoles in the airport stormwater samples, and how were they mitigated?
14. How do you envision the practical application of the developed SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS method for Benzotriazole detection in airport stormwater management practices?
15. The conclusion section could be condensed to a take home message based on the findings in the study. Now a large part is also a summary which could be found in the abstract as well
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is rather rough, and it is suggested that the author submit it again after optimization, with specific but not limited to the following key issues:
1. There are problems with the full text pictures, such as font size, clarity, style, letter case and so on.
2. Figures 1 and 2 seem to represent a simple fact and do not need pictures to express it.
3. In the abstract, the author should use more text to discuss the monitoring method. Rather than repeatedly emphasizing the purpose of monitoring (second and third sentences); The results of the monitoring should also be more specific and point out the specificity of the results, not just emphasize that this is the first monitoring. Monitoring activities do not improve the environment, only understand environmental processes.
4. The serial number and order of references do not meet the requirements of journals. One point cites too many references.
5. Table 3 appears to be a picture
6. The line 585 format is incorrect.
7. Figure 9 is a policy recommendation. But the content is too simple, is not suitable as a single picture. The author should be more specific about the management strategy.
8. The style of Figure 7 is not consistent with the other diagrams, the author should optimize the style of all diagrams and keep them consistent.
9. Policy recommendations should be placed in the discussion session rather than in the same chapter as the experimental results, and the special significance of the study for the airport environment should be emphasized.
Some text descriptions of the manuscript, especially the text in the Figures, need to be optimized.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle is acceptable in the current form.
Abstract: Background and aim are clear to the readers try to edit methodology to be clearer.
Results and conclusion are okay.
Introduction: Check citation in the first paragraph, 1-9 then 2,4 directly you mentioned reference number 18, please check arrangement of this.
Background and importance of the study are well written as well as main aim of the study.
Figure1 and 2 are of good quality.
Materials and Methods: No ethical approval mentioned, any issue about this.
Results and discussion: This section shown fine figures quality.
discussion is rich.
try to cite some references from this journal.
Best of luck
