Spatial and Temporal Deposition Rate of Beach Litter in Cadiz Bay (Southwest Spain)
, Julia Cristina Gutiérrez Romero 1, Francisco Asensio-Montesinos 1, Christian Rodríguez Castle 1, Carlos J. González 2 and Oscar Álvarez 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript lacks practical research value. It lacks relevance to both marine and environmental protection. This version could hardly be revised for the better.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
we carried out almost all your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper needs to be accepted after minor revision：
1、Lines 294 to 310 have a lot of white space.
2、Table 3 has a typographical problem.
3、Please use Origin for data graphs, not Excel.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is good
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
we carried out almost all your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research paper provides an insightful take on the problem of beach litter and plastic pollution in general. The larger research community and policymakers can certainly benefit from the findings. It is advised that the article be accepted for publication following minor revisions suggested below:
1. Figure 1 contains 4 graphics, so the authors can consider making the figure less crowded by splitting the original figure into two separate figures (one with coastal maps and the second with just the chart)
2. In Table 2, Please explain the difference between the units of litter abundance expressed in ‘Items m-1’, and ‘Items m-2’, and reason for the necessity of two different units.
3. Editing errors: There are two tables on line 281 and line 291, both labeled as Table 3, authors advised to check this inconsistency.
4. General comment for all figures and graphs: Please consider editing the font size, and/or color schemes where applicable so that the data points are legible to read
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
we carried out almost all your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focuses on the amount of beach waste along the coastal areas of Cadiz Bay in 10 days in autumn 2022 and spring 2023. The study found that the number of garbage types increased from 90 in autumn to 107 in spring, and that the main waste types included cigarette butts, plastic debris and plastic packaging. However, in my view, the following issues need to be addressed before consideration for publication.
1. The authors can provide some concrete solutions in the text to mitigate the impact of Marine waste on coastal ecosystems.
2. The references in a manuscript have many formatting issues, including (page number, corner signs, and journal abbreviation), which the authors need to be carefully checked to ensure that there are no such issues.
3. The study found that the increase in garbage types in coastal areas is related to the season, and whether there are other factors related to it, the authors can further explore.
4. There are many pictures whose quality is unclear, such as Figure 1, 6, 7, 8 etc., where authors need to provide higher quality images.
5. What scientific questions does this research solve, and what the significance of the research is, and what the future research direction is, the authors need to answer further.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
we carried out almost all your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJournal: SUSTAINABILITY
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2775309
Title : " Spatial and temporal deposition rate of beach litter in Cadiz 2 Bay (SW Spain)"
Author(s):
Elisabetta Ciufegni , Giorgio Anfuso ,Julia Cristina Gutiérrez Romero , Francisco Asensio Montesinos , tian Rodríguez Castle, Carlos J. González , Oscar Álvarez
General remark:
In my opinion, the paper " Competing with low cost carrier: Airline ticket pricing, carbon 2 trading, and market power structure” needs several corrections by the authors. For this reason, I consider the paper may be accepted after major corrections, and published in SUSTAINABILITY.
Comment 1: Abstract
Please the abstract requires a few corrections: please make it clear the the objective, methodology and main quantitative results obtained e.g. quantitative data about Cigarette butts and litter composition.
It is necessary to check this sentence “Statistical analyses did not reveal significant differences in litter quantities between autumn and spring, however high significant interaction was shown considering both season and beach location.”
Comment 2: Introduction
Please in the introduction, it is necessary to give more information about the methodology you said “easily applicable”
Comment 3: Methodology: sampling methodology
Please it is necessary to improve your methodology. Authors say “Dates were strategically chosen to minimize the influence of beach-goers on beach litter amount”. It is necessary to give the statistical reasons to support your apriori conclusions.
Comment 4: Data analysis
Even authors say ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. It is necessary to give more information about %confidence level. But the main problem it is not clear the experimental design used by you. Please introduce a table with this information
Comment 5: Results and discussion: Table 2
Please on table 2 make it clear why data is not on kg/m?. But also is looks that temperature was not considered?
On line 278: please make type correction.
On line 290: please it seems you make a mistake in the design of the paper
Comment 6: Figure 2
Please give the median values for each location.
Comment 7: data analysis
The main problem of the paper is that authors did not use intrinsic variables:
On line 218 to 221 : “Despite the methodology used in this paper deviates from many traditional studies based on single sampling campaigns generally focused on a standard beach sector 100 m in length (longshore) and different 220 width (according to beach dimensions and water level at the time of the survey), the fact 221 that most of the beach litter accumulates along the strandline”
On figure 3 authors used % items/m ? Please make it clear
Comment 8: Figure 8
Please give error bar
Comment 9: Poisson regression
Even authors say that a poisson regression analysis was used with wave direction, beach exposure and litter quantity. It is clear why did authors miss temperatures?
Comment 10: Hypothesis
Authors say that beach exposure is a significant predictor: but the sample was taken only with 11% of the season. This is really representative to give a conclusion.
Comment 11: Conclusions
Please if you introduce the problem of wastewater treatment systems. It means that the Bay is affected by. Please give quantitative data to support your conclusion. There is not any mention of the ISO10500 or any other
Comment 12: Conclusions
Please the use of DOI is highly recommended.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
we carried out almost all your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this version has improved and can be considered to be accepted.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral remark:
In my opinion, authors has made several corrections on the paper " Spatial and temporal deposition rate of beach litter in Cadiz 2 Bay (SW Spain)"But, I consider further corrections of the paper should be done.
On line 105. Please check and make the correction.
Appendix 1 is somewhat confusing: “Average values of litter density, expressed as number of weight of items m-1 and weight of items m-2, and associated 785 standar deviation values at surveyed beach.”
Authors said litter density, I suppose (SI Units (kg/m3)) expressed as …. Weight of items m-2, but this should be kg/m2. Please checkout. So I consider it is necessary to make it clear the units of your data in the table.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
