Assessment of Atmospheric Deposition of Potentially Toxic Elements in Macedonia Using a Moss Biomonitoring Technique
, Trajče Stafilov 2, Robert Šajn 3, Katerina Bačeva Andonovska 4, Marina Frontasyeva 5 and Inga Zinicovscaia 5,6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well written and can be published in the journal Sustaiability. It can be accepted after small modifications.
My comment is for the section 2.6 Quality Control. I suggest to insert the results of Quality Control as Supplementary material.
The second comment is for the page 16 at the end: F4 -natural distribution (As, cl, I). Has As really natural origin?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: ASSESSMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF POTENTIALLY TOXIC ELEMENTS IN MACEDONIA USING MOSS BIOMONITORING TECHNIQUE
1. How do the identified geogenic factors in the study reflect the natural distribution of certain elements in the environment, and what implications does this have for the overall findings?
2. How did the study account for potential variations in atmospheric deposition trends over time, and what factors were considered in evaluating the temporal changes in the content of the elements studied?
3. In what ways do the results of the study contribute to our understanding of the interplay between geological, environmental, and anthropogenic factors in shaping the spatial distribution of elements in the environment, particularly in the context of Macedonia?
4. What are the implications of the study findings for environmental monitoring and management in the region, and how can this research help inform targeted interventions to mitigate potential risks associated with atmospheric deposition of potentially toxic elements?
5. What is the significance of using moss biomonitoring techniques in assessing atmospheric deposition of potentially toxic elements?
6. Point out the specific anthropogenic activities that were found to have the greatest impact on the atmospheric deposition of potentially toxic elements during the study period.
7. Please provide more specific details about the deposition survey in Macedonia in 2015 and what specific aspects or parameters you would like to know about in comparison to the data from the previous surveys in 2002, 2005, and 2010.
8. What were the key findings regarding the distribution of potentially toxic elements in the different territorial regions and tectonic units in Macedonia?
9. What are the reasons behind the variations in median values for certain elements between the 2010 and 2015 surveys, particularly focusing on factors like cleaning of mosses and changes in precipitation patterns?
10. How do the median values of the potentially toxic elements in Macedonia compare with those from neighboring countries such as Albania, Bulgaria, Northern Greece, Serbia, and Norway? What were the possible reasons for these differences?
11. How did statistical methods used for data analysis, such as the bivariate statistics, cluster analysis, and factor analysis methods help in understanding the associations between different elements in the samples?
12. How were the key factors identified in the factor analysis related to the geological, environmental, and anthropogenic influences in Macedonia?
13. Based on the findings, what are the recommendations for environmental monitoring and management, and what are the potential future implications for atmospheric deposition fluxes in Macedonia?
14. In what ways does the study differentiate between geogenic and anthropogenic sources of potentially toxic elements?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the authors approached an interesting topic about how moss is affected by pollution and the contribution of vegetation (as a filter) in retaining toxic elements. The majority of studies are about how human health is affected by pollution, without saying too much about the importance of vegetation in this process. I especially appreciate the graphs that reflect the spatial distributions of some elements. The hot spots can be noticed quickly, and it is clear why targeted interventions are needed.
The authors used moss samples collected during the Autumn and Summer months in different years (2010, 2015) and compared the results. Also, the authors compared their results with results from other Balkan countries and Norway. For this study, they used three valuable methods of analysis: instrumental neutron activation analysis, inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry, and atomic absorption spectrometry to identify chemical elements from moss from geological, environmental, and anthropogenic sources.
It would be a good idea to explain why the authors used less recent data. Also, I would like to understand if there are differences between the samples collected during Summer and Autumn. I would also suggest adding information about how many samples are from rural and how many are from urban areas because it is evident that environmental pollution is higher in urban areas. I recommend adding the limitations of this study and, eventually, the perspectives.
I was not too fond of the number of self-citations (it is very high from my point of view). When half of the references are self-citations, I expect to understand better the progress of their work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, a deposition survey is performed based on terrestrial moss analysis aiming to compare the results obtained with those of the 2010 survey to evaluate temporal deposition trends. Additionally, to compare these results with those of similar surveys in other Balkan countries and Norway in 2015, to determine the contribution of natural and anthropogenic sources, and to identify patterns of deposition.
The work described, led to useful results that merit publication. However, input information to this study that stems from earlier experimental campaigns must be mentioned, notably: The experience gained from the corrosion and soiling effects on materials by air pollution campaign conducted in Athens Greece e.g., doi:10.5194/acp-11-12039-2011, and https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-8309-2009. This will also help to the effort of the separation between anthropogenic and natural contributions.
Furthermore, a brief paragraph focusing on the summary of the statistical error of the results obtained (adding perhaps a graphical presentation) should be inserted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in the present form
