Determination of the Bioaccumulative Potential Risk of Emerging Contaminants in Fish Muscle as an Environmental Quality Indicator in Coastal Lagoons of the Central Mexican Pacific
, Eduardo Ramírez-Ayala 1, Jorge Alberto Mendoza-Pérez 2, María Magdalena Monroy-Mendieta 2, Miguel Vázquez-Guevara 3, Carlos Lezama-Cervantes 4, Enrique Godínez-Domínguez 1, Francisco de Asís Silva-Bátiz 1 and Adrián Tintos-Gómez 1,5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is very interesting and well written.
The chemical analysis section is very detailed.
The calculation of the indices is satisfactory.
The article presented is really very interesting, the use of 14 species of bioindicators makes the work not only more interesting but also more precise in the results. Compliments.
The work is publishable; I only have two small corrections:
- Result and Discussion
Line 194 – how many individuals are the average concentration referred to? Or how many analytical replicates?
Figure 2. The legend of colors is missing
Author Response
Reviewer
The manuscript was modified considering all the changes suggested for the reviewers
Thanks for your comments and suggestions
Line 194 – how many individuals are the average concentration referred to? Or how many analytical replicates?
Was specified - lines 196,197.
Figure 2. The legend of colors is missing
The legend of color was added -Figure 2.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very fine and interesting manuscript. The study on NSAIDs is highly relevant.
I only found few things that I find will improve the manuscript. General, I suggest that the authors should work a bit more on the results and presentation of those, including statistics.
- line 66: I wonder why it is stated that human have their dermal contact to NSAIDs through soil?
- Figure 2: the explanation for the different bar colors is missing.
- Figure 2 and throughout the manus: remember to do scientific species names in italic
- Figure 2 and 3: Has any statistical analyses been performed? Please include analyses if possible or else describe why it is not possible.
-line 210-213: I find that the statements of which compound is most persistent is too conclusive based on these data. For Site A, Ibuprofen is only found in higher conc in fish B and H. Same for the statement of Naproxen for Site B, which is also only found higher in two of 7 fish species.
- Table 4: How are you treating the four different contaminants? It is a bit unclear. I suggest that you calculate and provide BCF, BPR and the classification for each contaminant
- Table 4: What does ‘-‘ mean? Not able to determine? Please state so.
- Line 237-240: I dont follow this one. Are 0.1 and 0.2 based on your data or are these values provided by reference [12]. Maybe an additional table would be good to show these results on HRF values. Though your data may not document risk, I believe you should provide the data – these data also per contaminant.
Author Response
Reviewer:
The manuscript was modified considering all the changes suggested for the reviewers.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
line 66: I wonder why it is stated that human have their dermal contact to NSAIDs through soil?
- Figure 2: the explanation for the different bar colors is missing.
The legend of color was added -Figure 2.
- Figure 2 and throughout the manus: remember to do scientific species names in italic
The font format in scientific names was changed -lines 199-201; 205, 206.
- Figure 2 and 3: Has any statistical analyses been performed? Please include analyses if possible or else describe why it is not possible.
The standard error of the mean was included - lines 196,197.
-line 210-213: I find that the statements of which compound is most persistent is too conclusive based on these data. For Site A, Ibuprofen is only found in higher conc in fish B and H. Same for the statement of Naproxen for Site B, which is also only found higher in two of 7 fish species.
Also suggested may be the most consumed drugs of the studied group - line 214.
- Table 4: How are you treating the four different contaminants? It is a bit unclear. I suggest that you calculate and provide BCF, BPR and the classification for each contaminant
The contaminants were evaluated as a group. Due to the similarities in the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of the compounds, some of the results tend to be the same.
-Table 4: What does ‘-‘ mean? Not able to determine? Please state so.
It was changed as suggested - Table 4, Table 5.
- Line 237-240: I dont follow this one. Are 0.1 and 0.2 based on your data or are these values provided by reference [12]. Maybe an additional table would be good to show these results on HRF values. Though your data may not document risk, I believe you should provide the data – these data also per contaminant.
It was changed –Lines 243-244.
