Monitoring of Microplastics in Water and Sediment Samples of Lakes and Rivers of the Akmola Region (Kazakhstan)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Readability and Structure: The manuscript, while comprehensive and detailed, suffers from issues related to readability and structure. The text is dense, and the flow of information is not intuitive, making it challenging for readers to follow the narrative or identify key findings easily. The results are not summarized effectively, and there is an abundance of unnecessary detail that detracts from the manuscript's core messages.

Recommendations for Improvement:

1. Enhance Readability: Simplify complex sentences and ensure a logical flow of ideas. Use subheadings to break down sections and guide the reader through your findings.
2. Clarify Key Findings: Summarize the main results at the beginning and end of the results section to reinforce the study's significant contributions.
3. Reduce Redundancy: Eliminate unnecessary details that do not contribute to the understanding of the study's main findings or implications.
   

   Specific Recommendations

   • Lines 30-32: Split the sentence for better readability. For example, "Improved water supply and sanitation can significantly contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction. Additionally, clean and safe water is essential for maintaining a healthy society."

   • Lines 49-50: This revision improves clarity: "The issues of solid domestic waste utilization and processing remain critical and unresolved in modern Kazakhstan."

   • Terms like "water of water bodies" and "sediments of open water body": Use standard water stratification terms for clarity and consistency.

   • Section 2: Moving the "Description of the study area" to Supplementary Data can help streamline the main text, focusing the reader's attention on the research findings.

   • Lines 369-372: Transfer this content to the acknowledgments to maintain the focus on research data and analysis in the main body.

   • Materials and Methods: Clearly outline the subsections to guide the reader through the research methodology systematically.

   • Lines 381-386 and 389-397: Relocate these lines to the Materials and Methods section for better organization.

   • Lines 407-410: These details are more suitable for footnotes or appendices to keep the main text concise.

   • Tables 12-14: Standardize units (particles/m3 and particles/dm3) for consistency and ease of comparison.

   • Lines 437-439, 441-442: Immediately presenting correlation factors can strengthen the argument and provide clearer evidence of the findings.

   • FTIR Analysis Results: Clarify the presentation and implications of these results to reinforce the study's conclusions.

1. Complex Sentences and Technical Jargon: The text is dense with complex sentences and specialized terms, making it difficult for readers who may not be experts in the field. Simplifying sentences and explaining terms can enhance accessibility.

2. Unstructured Text: The manuscript lacks clear division and flow between sections, making it hard to follow the progression of the study. Improved headings and a logical sequence of information can aid reader comprehension.

Author Response

Dear reviewer #1,

Thanks very much for your comments. I am pleased to submit the revised version of our original research article entitled “Monitoring of microplastics in water and sediment samples of lakes and rivers of the Akmola Region (Kazakhstan)" for consideration for publication in Water.

We have carefully updated the content of the manuscript following the comments of all the reviewers. The new version of the manuscript modifies the requested sections of the original one. The manuscript has been reorganized as requested and links to access the standards on Table 10 have been included as requested by other reviewers. The English use has been reviewed over the whole manuscript, trying to simplify sentences as much as possible. Once all the comments of the reviewers have been addressed, we believe that this updated version of the manuscript fulfills all their requirements and is now appropriate for publication in Water.

The following specific recommendations have been corrected as requested:

• Lines 30-32: Split the sentence for better readability.
• Lines 49-50: This revision improves clarity: "The issues of solid domestic waste utilization and processing remain critical and unresolved in modern Kazakhstan."
• The repetitive use of the term “water bodies” has been avoided.
• Thank you for your suggestion regarding the relocation of this section to the Supplementary Material. After reviewing the text, we have decided to retain it within the main body of the manuscript. We believe that providing insight into the actual characteristics of the study area is valuable for the reader. We hope you agree with our decision
• A new acknowledgements section has been included at the end of the manuscript as requested.
• Materials and Methods: The following subsections have been added, to better organize this section content:

3.1.- Location of the sampling points

3.2 Water sampling equipment and sampling methodology

3.3 Water quality standards

3.4 Methodology to extract and analyze microplastics from water and sediment samples

• Lines 381-386 and 389-397: Relocate these lines to the Materials and Methods section for better organization.
• Lines 407-410: Details provided about Tables S1 to S12 are now included as Supplementary Material
• Tables 12-14: There was a typo in the column titles. All the units were already expressed in particles/dm3.
• Former lines 437-439, 441-442 (now lines 430-435) are located immediately before presenting correlation factors as suggested.
• Section 4 has been subdivided and a new section is included to analyze FTIR Analysis Results. Now Section 4 includes the following subsections:

4.1 Analysis of MP content in water samples

4.2 Correlation dependencies

4.3 Analysis of MP content in sediment samples

4.4 Analysis of FTIR results

Reviewer 2 Report

See comments in the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Needs editing

Author Response

Dear reviewer #2,

Thanks very much for your comments. I am pleased to submit the revised version of our original research article entitled “Monitoring of microplastics in water and sediment samples of lakes and rivers of the Akmola Region (Kazakhstan)" for consideration for publication in Water.

We have carefully updated the content of the manuscript following the comments of all the reviewers. The new version of the manuscript modifies the requested sections of the original one. The manuscript has been reorganized as requested and links to access the standards on Table 10 have been included.

Once all the comments of the reviewers have been addressed, we believe that this updated version of the manuscript fulfills all their requirements and is now appropriate for publication in Water.

Please find below the answers to your specific comments. 

 The abstract has been updated as requested.

• Resolution of Figure 1 has been improved (see the WORD file version, as the PDF version may have compressed the figure) so now all the details in the figure are easily readable
• Typo on line 243 has been corrected
• Table 10 has been updated to include the download links to all the standards
• Paragraphs have been united as requested (line 403)
• Figs 8, 9 and 10 have been plotted using the same value on the Y-Axis (1.4 particles/dm³), so these figures can be compared straightforwardly. The Excel File with the details of the correlation analysis is now provided as Supplementary Material

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all my suggestions. Now, I feel satisfied with the manuscript.