Factors Affecting Shellfish Quality in Terms of Faecal Contamination at Blakeney Point, East Anglia, UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting manuscript on a quite novel matter. English language is satisfactory and the meanings are clear. Some minor mistakes eg guidelines if they were applied); no bracket is needed shoud be corrected. Please proofread. Please see also the following points raised

1) in introduction too detailed information is given for some matters eg the r correlation of some findings. this is more appropriate for the discussion

2) as stated in the introduction quite some work has been done on the fecal contamination in UK estuaries through this approach-so what is the use of this additional work that was not already done before? furthermore why  this locality may be important for an international audience?

3) as such in the concluding sentences of your introduction you should explain what the problem is, what is the aims and scope for your research, what gaps it may rectify and why it is important as an international research

4) In introduction you state Several sites were chosen either as 65 potential point sources of pollution or were considered to be key locations (Figure 1). Sam-66 ples of shellfish were also taken from two sites. Results of water sample analysis repre-67 sents real time contamination whilst results obtained from the shellfish represent accu-68 mulation of contaminants over several weeks and therefore concentrations and profiles 69 represent a much longer time period.

this is more appropriate in the materials and methods section. In relation to this-it is still not clear to me how the particular sites were chosen (especially the water sampling sites). how can you be sure that these waters are characteristic of the waters into contact to the bivalves. also why this actual number (6 sites) were chosen

5) maybe it is better to give in one paragraph (chemicals and reagents) all chemicals used together with manufacturer, city, country of origin

6) for all apparatuses used give model, manufacturer, city, country of origin. for example where it says samples were homogenized give the homogenizer model etc... the same about beakers, filters, internal standards, etc..

7) In Fig 1 I am not sure what corresponds to water and what to land because of the green blue colours, please amend. what is the name near point 8 is it correct?

8) in statistical analysis please replace As ANOVA only 140 identifies significant differences among treatments, to identify treatment effects, the 141 Tukey test (p = 0.05) was used.

with

ANOVA was followed by  Tukey post hoc test.

9) name the Bathing Water Directive with its proper number eg XX/1999/EC

10) In Fig 2 the full names of the sites cannot be seen so it is difficult for the reader. it is better to code the sites and give the names as a footnote in the Fig. 

11) if there are statistically significant differences between sites (sites Freshers Creek and Blackeney are abvious) they cannot be seen. Please give the same letter a, b, c etc.. for site columns that are not statistically different from each other. 

12) in Fig 3 explain that 5 b-cop is the same as cholesterol? what is meant /100 mL? of seawater? you should remind in some way what points 1, 2... mean in the map so that they can be connected with the actual site names in Fig3b

13) see point 10 for Fig 4

14) I think it would be better instead of Fig 6 to show as a table all Spearman(?) correlations between the parameters you measured and - when no significant correlation is found and R2=X * when significant correlation is found

15) please cite the following references in relation to pollution biomarkers and mussels in UK

Scarlett AG, Clough R, West C, Lewis CA, Booth AM, Rowland SJ. Alkylnaphthalenes: priority pollutants or minor contributors to the poor health of marine mussels? Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jul 15;45(14):6160-6.

Langston WJ, O'Hara S, Pope ND, Davey M, Shortridge E, Imamura M, Harino H, Kim A, Vane CH. Bioaccumulation surveillance in Milford Haven Waterway. Environ Monit Assess. 2012 Jan;184(1):289-311.

Fernandes A, Mortimer D, Gem M, Dicks P, Smith F, White S, Rose M. Brominated dioxins (PBDD/Fs) and PBDEs in marine shellfish in the UK. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2009 Jun;26(6):918-27.

Emmanouil C, Green RM, Willey FR, Chipman JK. Oxidative damage in gill of Mytilus edulis from Merseyside, UK, and reversibility after depuration. Environ Pollut. 2008 Feb;151(3):663-8. 

Law RJ, Kelly CA, Baker KL, Langford KH, Bartlett T. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments, mussels and crustacea around a former gasworks site in Shoreham-by-Sea, UK. Mar Pollut Bull. 2002 Sep;44(9):903-11.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. The reviewer's comments have been addressed. Please refer to the attached document.

Kind Regards,

Leadin Khudur on behalf of all the authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for the paper "Factors affecting shellfish quality in terms of faecal contamination at Blakeney Point, East Anglia, UK" by Andrew S Ball, Esmaeil Shahsavari, Leadin S. Khudur, Arturo Aburto-Medina, David J. Smith submitted to "Water".

 

 

General comment.

 

Assessing of water quality is one of the most important issues in marine areas especially having high economical and ecological significance. The region of Blakeney Point, East Anglia, UK is an example of such an area due to significant shellfishery industries including aquaculture of mussels and cockles. The authors tested the potential of using bacterial analyses and sterol profiling to evaluate the current levels and source of faecal pollution at Blakeney Point. The study revealed significant quantities of sitosterol originated mainly from birds but there was no significant human faecal contamination of water in and around Blakeney Point. Standard procedures and methods to collect samples and to treat the data were used in the study. Main results are illustrated with relevant Figures and Tables. Discussion is comprehensive and focused on the main findings. Statistical methods are adequate and correctly used. This study may be useful for environmentalists dealing with assessing water quality and monitoring of waters in regions with aquaculture industries worldwide. I recommend accepting this paper for publication in 'Water' after minor revisions.

 

Specific remarks.

Fig. 1. Please, add coordinates on the map.

M&M. Please, indicate total number of samples tested.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. The reviewer's comments have been addressed. Please refer to the attached document.

Kind Regards,

Leadin Khudur on behalf of all the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx