Closing Blank Spots and Illuminating Blind Spots in Research on Emerging Contaminants: The Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact–Mitigation (SPRIM) Continuum as an Organizing Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The discussion for the need for SPRIM framework and the need for multidisciplinary approaches were well presented. I support the publication of this article with a minor review. Here are some suggestions.

-          It would have been helpful to provide a case study to compare the conventional approached and proposed framework to elucidate the significance of SPRIM better.

-          This may be outside the scope of this paper, but there are many challenges of multidisciplinary projects.

-          The primary challenge for adopting a change from the current research organizing framework is meeting the constraints of different stakeholders with different agendas.

-          Multidisciplinary project team members have different training, backgrounds, experiences, and traditions. However, each discipline has communal conventions for how data are collected, what formats are preferred, and how data are labeled, organized, and analyzed. The authors could suggest how to overcome theses challenges.

-          Multidisciplinary research also creates potential administrative issues hindering a broader perspective on experimental methods.

 Section 4.1 Source – While the examples include rare sources such as the funeral industry, there is no mention of PFAS

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The discussion for the need for SPRIM framework and the need for multidisciplinary approaches were well presented. I support the publication of this article with a minor review. Here are some suggestions.

 

Author’s Response:

I thanks the reviewer for the overall positive comments. I have considered and addressed the specific comments raised.

 

-          It would have been helpful to provide a case study to compare the conventional approached and proposed framework to elucidate the significance of SPRIM better.

 

Author’s Response:

I have considered the reviewer’s valid point. However, the SPRIM is a conceptual framework proposed to guide future research on emerging contaminants so that all relevant aspects from source to mitigation are addressed. To my knowledge, no comparative case studies exists, but the merits of the framework relative to the current approach are discussed in the paper, including the avoidance of the Bandwagon or Matthew effect. To address the comment I revised as follows;

 

-‘It is envisaged that, the application of the SPRIM continuum concept as an organizing framework will culminate in a balanced coverage of the various aspects related to emerging contaminants. This is n contrast to the prevailing scenario where other aspects attract more attention than other equally important ones.

-I included a flow-chart illustrating its potential application as a decision support tool for framing research.

 

-          This may be outside the scope of this paper, but there are many challenges of multidisciplinary projects.

 

Author’s Response:

I agree. In fact, I have discussed some of the potential pitfalls of the proposed framework and proposed some possible solutions. The reviewer raised a number of interesting points pertaining to multidisciplinary collaborative projects and how they relate to the proposed SPRIM continuum framework. I really appreciated the insights that these comments brought out:

 

To collectively address the reviewer’s comments on how the framework can be linked to collaborative research I revised and added the section below as one of the potential applications:

 

‘The SPRIM framework: A primer for collaborative research and use of big data analytics

 

Evidently, the SPRIM continuum transcend various disciplines, including environmental sciences, microbiology/ecology, (eco)toxicology, human toxicology, epidemiology, and civil/environmental engineering. Thus, addressing the various aspects of the SPRIM continuum calls for systematic collaboration among diverse team members each with their own academic and research backgrounds, experience, and methodologies. In this regard, the SPRIM continuum framework may serve as a primer or tool to promote collaborative research on emerging contaminants. Yet, collaborative research projects could pose potential challenges with respect to data collection protocols, and how the resulting data are archived, labelled, organized, analysed, and visualized. One option to avoid such potential conflicts is to include the core team members during each stage of the project from research conceptualization, design, implementation, analysis and interpretation of data, and subsequent communication to the various stakeholders. This approach will ensure a collective understanding of the research protocols and the entire project.

 

Admittedly, a collaborative project involving a diverse research team and addressing the entire SPRIM continuum will generate a putatively large dataset. Such large or massive datasets could be collected at different spatial and temporal scales, have varied and complex structures, and are often expressed in various units depending on the discipline. Large datasets with complex and varied structures, which are  difficult to store, retrieve, analyze, and visualize for further processing and application in decision- and policy-making are regarded as big data (Sagiroglu and Sinanc, 2013; Asokan and Asokan, 2015). In turn, big data analytics have the potential to handle such large and complex data.

 

Big data analytics refers to a suite of  related  analytical processes or techniques of analysing and researching large datasets to reveal hidden or salient spatial and temporal patterns, trends, and relationships, which may not be apparent using conventional statistical tools (Sagiroglu and Sinanc, 2013; Asokan and Asokan, 2015). Big data analytics is a collective term referring to analytical tools such as data mining,  network analysis, artificial neural networks, and machine learning or artificial intelligence. Although  big data and big analytics are attractive research tools in emerging contaminants, their application is still limited. In fact, the present call reiterates earlier ones highlighting the need to harness big data techniques to better understand the occurrence, behaviour, fate, and health risks of emerging contaminants (Cheng et al., 2020; Romero et a., 2017; Gwenzi et al., 2020, 2022; Gupta et al., 2021). Thus, the need to analyse big data generated from research based on the SPRIM continuum framework could act as a precursor for the application of such big data analytical tools in research on emerging contaminants.

 

-          The primary challenge for adopting a change from the current research organizing framework is meeting the constraints of different stakeholders with different agendas.

 

Author’s Response:

I agree, but a synthesis of the findings is still possible, and this is discussed in the paper on how the results of individual studies based on the framework can be integrated through the compilation of synthesis papers. I also discussed a potential solution to this challenges under a new section entitled:

The SPRIM framework: A primer for collaborative research and application of big data analytics

 

-          Multidisciplinary project team members have different training, backgrounds, experiences, and traditions. However, each discipline has communal conventions for how data are collected, what formats are preferred, and how data are labelled, organized, and analyzed. The authors could suggest how to overcome theses challenges.

 

Author’s Response:

I agree. I addressed  and discussed this point in detail in a response to an earlier comment on multidisciplinary collaboration.

 

-          Multidisciplinary research also creates potential administrative issues hindering a broader perspective on experimental methods.

 

Author’s Response:

I agree. I addressed  and discussed this point a response to an earlier comment on multidisciplinary collaboration.

 

 

 Section 4.1 Source – While the examples include rare sources such as the funeral industry, there is no mention of PFAS

 

Author’s Response:

I agree, and added PFAS among emerging contaminants that are relatively understudied compared to others.

See attached responses and manuscript with tracked changes in supplementary material

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author provides an editorial perspective on using the Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact–Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum as a framework to address the wide range of emerging contaminants that are often discussed in isolation with some receiving less attention despite their public health risks. I find this editorial interesting and important due to the increasing use of new materials and their subsequent disposal, leading to the generation of varying emerging contaminants. The following suggestions are however provided for the author to improve the contents and clarity of the presentation.

The presented framework in Fig. 1. Is oversimplified and does not really show much. I understand this is just an editorial. However, a well-presented Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact–Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum framework, if possible, could add value to this write-up. Besides, I cannot see how this framework addresses a wide range of emerging contaminants that have different processes from generation to disposal, including mitigation.

 

So, based on the above comment, I do not quite agree with the conclusion that this framework can serve as a generic decision support tool for the varying emerging contaminants. 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

The author provides an editorial perspective on using the Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact–Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum as a framework to address the wide range of emerging contaminants that are often discussed in isolation with some receiving less attention despite their public health risks. I find this editorial interesting and important due to the increasing use of new materials and their subsequent disposal, leading to the generation of varying emerging contaminants. The following suggestions are however provided for the author to improve the contents and clarity of the presentation.

 

Author’s Response:

I thank the reviewer for the positive comments, and for acknowledging the merits of the contribution.

 

The presented framework in Fig. 1. Is oversimplified and does not really show much. I understand this is just an editorial. However, a well-presented Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact–Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum framework, if possible, could add value to this write-up. Besides, I cannot see how this framework addresses a wide range of emerging contaminants that have different processes from generation to disposal, including mitigation.

 

Author’s Response:

Thanks. I considered the comment. In fact Figure 1 in the manuscript is more detailed than what is currently in the literature (See e.g.,). Besides the Figure 1 itself, I have also described in more detail what each component of SPRIM entails – in my view, the current description is more detailed than what is currently available in the literature. To address the reviewer’s comments, while maintaining brevity, I have revised and included an additional Figure 2 which is a flow-chart illustrating the application of the SPRIM framework as a decision support tool for framing research on emerging contaminants. I hope this addresses the reviewer’s comments on the need for further details on the SPRIM framework.

 

In summary I revised as follows:

 

Figure 2 depicts how the SPRIM continuum concept can be used to develop a checklist of questions for use as a decision-support tool for framing research on emerging contaminants. For example, given an emerging contaminant of interest, the SPRIM continuum framework can be used to evaluate the evidence to determine the most-studied and poorly understood aspects. Then, the under-studied aspects are used as  a basis to develop and frame future research, thus avoiding duplicating previous research efforts. Using the SPRIM continuum to determine what aspects of emerging contaminants are well-studied versus those that are poorly understood constitute the decision-support application of the framework. In the case that all aspects of the SPRIM continuum for a given emerging contaminant are well-known, this then justifies the need to identify other emerging contaminants. Once another emerging contaminant of potential investigation has been identified, the process is repeated, starting evaluating the evidence with respect to the sources of the emerging contaminant (Figure 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: A flow-chart depicting the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Impact-Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum framework as a decision-support tool to frame research on emerging contaminants.

 

 

So, based on the above comment, I do not quite agree with the conclusion that this framework can serve as a generic decision support tool for the varying emerging contaminants. 

 

Author’s Response:

I considered the comment of the reviewer. In the proposed framework, the key aspects pertaining to emerging contaminants are broadly conceptualized as belong to five potential categories that from the SPRIM framework. For a given emerging contaminants, a examination of the existing scientific evidence using the 5 categories of the SPRIM framework will inform the researcher whether that aspects is well studied or not. Consequently, based on that, the researcher will be able to determine what aspects are poorly studied and warrant further investigation. The processing of deciding to investigate some aspects and not others evaluating evidence using the SPRIM framework constitute the decision-support tool function of the concept. I further explained this in my earlier response above, and revised to include an additional Figure 2 illustrating the decision-support application of the concept. I hope this addresses the reviewer’s comments.

See attached responses and manuscript with tracked changes in supplementary material.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work on titled, Closing the blank and blind spots in research on emerging contaminants: The Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact– Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum as an organizing framework. Although, this work contains some results, the organization and interpretation of the result should be enhanced further. Hence, I recommend this work required a substantial revision before considering for publications.

1.      Include some figures to explain the concept in more clearly. I don’t find any figures in the manuscript.

2.      Novelty of the work should be highlighted in the introduction in more clearly.

3.      The authors designed the work nicely, merely presented the results but failed to discuss the observed results elaborately.

4.      I suggest the authors to compare the previous literature similar to that work to find a merits of this work.

5.      Some statement should be revised with proper citation; Journal of Hazardous Materials, 412, 125245 (2021); Journal of Hazardous Materials, 418, 126269 (2021).

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this work on titled, Closing the blank and blind spots in research on emerging contaminants: The Source–Pathway–Receptor–Impact– Mitigation (SPRIM) continuum as an organizing framework. Although, this work contains some results, the organization and interpretation of the result should be enhanced further. Hence, I recommend this work required a substantial revision before considering for publications.

 

Author’s Response:

I considered the reviewer’s comments. However, I disagree that the work contains some results. Rather, the work presents a conceptual framework that can be used to determine what aspects of emerging contaminants are well studied and which one are not. Based on that analysis a researcher can identify knowledge gaps that warrant further investigation. To achieve this, the key aspects pertaining to emerging contaminants are grouped into five broad categories that form the SPRIM continuum framework. Using this framework as a checklist one can examine literature to determine what aspects are well studied and which ones warrants further research – this is an example of the decision support application of the framework.

 

To address the comments I revised as follows:

• Included an additional section on use of the tool to promote collaboration and use of big data analytics
• Further explained how the concept can be used as a decision support tool to frame future research
• Included an addition Figure 2 – a flowchart illustrating how to use the SPRIM concept as a decision support too.

Please see earlier response to other reviewer’s comments.

 

1. Include some figures to explain the concept in more clearly. I don’t find any figures in the manuscript.

 

Author’s Response:

I considered the comment. In fact, the manuscript has a figure 1 with a conceptual framework. I have included further description of the concept and a Figure 1 illustrating its application as a decision support too. In addition, a section is now included on how the concept may act as a primer for collaborative research and application of big data analytics in research on emerging contaminants. Since, the present paper is an editorial perspective introducing a Special issue on emerging contaminants, I do not intend to provide a comprehensive review on the subject. In fact, further details of the SPRIM concept are discussed several related papers by the same author and the reader has been referred to those earlier papers.

 

2. Novelty of the work should be highlighted in the introduction in more clearly.

 

Author’s Response:

I agree and revised the Introduction to highlight the novelty of the proposed SPRIM concept:

 

‘In summary, the present paper posits that, compared to prevailing and seemingly ad-hoc approach predominant in research on emerging contaminants, the potential novelty of applying the proposed SPRIM continuum framework is that it addresses the bandwagon or Matthew effect. As decision-support tool, the SPRIM continuum  framework serves a dual function as a: (1) checklist to identify key knowledge gaps and frame future research, and (2) primer for promoting collaborative research and application of emerging big data analytics in research on emerging contaminants. Collectively, it is envisaged that the SPRIM continuum framework will provide a comprehensive and balanced understanding of various aspects on emerging contaminants relative to the current approach.’

 

3. The authors designed the work nicely, merely presented the results but failed to discuss the observed results elaborately.

 

Author’s Response:

I thanks the reviewer for the positive comments. However, as highlighted earlier, the paper presents no observed results. It discuses a conceptual framework, its merits, potential applications and limitations. I have provided further details on the concept and its application as well as an additional Figure 2 illustrating the application of the concept. I hope this addresses the reviewer’s concerns.

 

4. I suggest the authors to compare the previous literature similar to that work to find a merits of this work.

 

Author’s Response:

I considered the comment. It is already highlighted in the paper that limited studies have applied this concept to emerging contaminants and that the few that did were limited to microplastics and legacy contaminants. In those cases, only the sources, pathways and receptors were considered, while the impact and mitigation were excluded. It is indicated that the current paper extends this concept to include the other two previously excluded components. For brevity, I made no further corrections besides explaining the application of the concept as a decision support tool with the aid of an additional Figure 2, and as a precursor for collaborative research and application of big data analytics.

 

5. Some statement should be revised with proper citation; Journal of Hazardous Materials, 412, 125245 (2021); Journal of Hazardous Materials, 418, 126269 (2021).

 

Author’s Response:

I considered the comment, and retrieved and reviewed the two papers below:

 

Journal of Hazardous Materials, 418, 126269 (2021).

Naik, S.S., Lee, S.J., Theerthagiri, J., Yu, Y. and Choi, M.Y., 2021. Rapid and highly selective electrochemical sensor based on ZnS/Au-decorated f-multi-walled carbon nanotube nanocomposites produced via pulsed laser technique for detection of toxic nitro compounds. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 418, p.126269.

 

Journal of Hazardous Materials, 412, 125245 (2021)

Theerthagiri, J., Lee, S.J., Karuppasamy, K., Arulmani, S., Veeralakshmi, S., Ashokkumar, M. and Choi, M.Y., 2021. Application of advanced materials in sonophotocatalytic processes for the remediation of environmental pollutants. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 412, p.125245.

 

A closer examination of these two papers shows that the first one focuses on detection of nitro compounds by an electrochemical sensor, which is not within the scope of the present paper. The other one reports on the remediation of environmental pollutants, but the present paper is not about remediation per se, but a concept that can be used as a tool to frame research in order to have a balanced understanding of the subject. To reiterate, the present paper presents a conceptual framework, its merits, potential applications and limitations, but is not about a specific detection or remediation method for contaminants. In view of this, I see no reason to cite the papers – therefore, I made no corrections.

see attached responses and manuscript with track changes in supplementary material.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors improved their work based on the reviewers comment, and it may be considered for publication.

Recommendation: Accept.