Integrative Assessment of Sediment Quality in the São Francisco River (Mina Gerais, Brazil)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This is “classical” environmental contribution based on sound research project and well communicated. The methodology is well-explained. The results will be interesting to the international research audience. The work is written and structured appropriately. So, I tend to recommend it for publication, although some amendments/additions are necessary. Please, see my comments below and pay the biggest attention to those marked with “!”.
1) Key words: please, avoid the words from the title.
2) ! Introduction and/or Discussion: please, link this study to the international research (may be UN SDGs).
3) Subsection 2.1: please, describe better the geographical setting: landforms, climate, hydrology, vegetation, socio-economical setting. etc.
4) Materials and Methods: when were the samples collected? What was the influence of the factor of seasonality and various long-term changes? In which laboratory the samples were analyzed?
5) ! Materials and Methods & Results: if this paper is about sediments, more sedimentological data (for instance, grain size and composition) should be provided.
6) Discussion: please, state the managerial/policy implications of your findings.
7) The writing is generally ok. Just, please, check, that each section/subsection consists of no less than two paragraphs, and each paragraph has no less than 2-3 sentences.
8) I think that more figures, including photos may benefit this paper.
9) I’m not sure it is ethical to disclose the name of the factory. Please, think twice before doing this and check the national laws (whether this is permitted or not).
10) ! References: please, cite more articles published in top international journals in the 2020s.
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review
Paper title: Integrative assessment of sediment quality in São Francisco River (Mina Gerais, Brazil)
The authors conducted a field survey to study the physicochemical properties of sediments and macrobenthic community indices in the São Francisco River. According to data analysis, the authors revealed the most important pollution sources in the region. These results may have important implications for the management and conservation practices in the São Francisco River basin.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Inmaculada Riba and co-authors submitted to "Applied Sciences".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. The study is correctly designed and the authors used appropriate sampling methods. In general, statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. The authors conducted careful work that may attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on environmental pollution.
Recommendations.
The authors used ANOVA to test the data for differences. This parametric approach requires normal data distribution and data heterogeneity. Thus, the authors should test the data for normality and heteroscedasticity and transform the data if required or they should use a non-parametric approach.
Section 3.1. The statements presented here are confusing. On one hand, “These results did not show a significant (p < 0.05) gradient…” whilst as we can see in Table 1 and in the text (“…a decreasing pattern related to domestic waste contamination from BG4 > SF1 > SF3 ≈ ZM2 > SF2…”), some stations demonstrated greater levels of some parameters. The authors should check the data and clarify if there were gradients in the parameters studied or not.
Table 1. The authors should present standard errors.
Table 2. Did the authors compare statistically the diversity indices among the sites? Some of them seem to be different (this is confirmed by the text in L. 319-324) whereas the asterisks are presented for BMWP only.
L 313. “and a Pearson correlation”. There were no results of Pearson correlation analysis in the study. Please, check and revise.
The “Conclusion” should be shortened.
Specific remarks.
L 2. Consider replacing “quality in” with “quality in the”
L 25. Consider replacing “So that;” with “Thus,”
L 36. Consider replacing “such as Paraopeba” with “such as the Paraopeba”
L 38. Consider replacing “influence over it” with “influence it”
L 44. Consider replacing “releasing it” with “releasing them”
L 62. Consider replacing “Other line-of-evidence” with “Another line-of-evidence”
L 70. Consider replacing “area, as” with “area such as”
L 72. Consider replacing “concentration” with “concentrations”
L 73. Consider replacing “was measured” with “were measured”
L 92. Consider replacing “control station” with “control”
L 92. Consider replacing “BG4 station is” with “the BG4 station was”
L 93. Consider replacing “upstream to” with “upstream of”
L 95. Consider replacing “is located” with “was located”
L 96. Consider replacing “just opposite of the security” with “just opposite the security”
L 100. Consider replacing “is located” with “was located”
L 122. Consider replacing “pipetting/weighing of” with “pipetting/weighing”
L 124. Consider replacing “Chemical nitrogen species” with “Chemical nitrogen forms”
L 133. Consider replacing “AVS-SEM technique” with “the AVS-SEM technique”
L 146. Consider replacing “considered” with “considering”
L 155. Consider replacing “level as possible” with “level”
L 156. Consider replacing “It was used” with “We used”
L 160. Consider replacing “since worms” with “while worms”
L 180. Consider replacing “treatment” with “treatments”
L 181. Consider replacing “Bray–Curtis similarity index” with “the Bray–Curtis similarity index”
L 194. Consider replacing “The, concentration” with “The concentrations”
L 198. Consider replacing “that shows the metal Pb, Zn, Hg, Cu, and As with the highest levels compared to the other stations” with “with the highest levels of Pb, Zn, Hg, Cu, and As compared to the other stations”
L 200. Consider replacing “on the area of mixing between São Francisco River and the highly factory influenced” with “in the area of mixing between the São Francisco River and the heavily factory-influenced”
L 202. Consider replacing “levels in metals” with “levels of metals”
L 205. Consider replacing “the station BG4 show the lowest concentration in” with “station BG4 show the lowest concentration of”
L 225. Consider replacing “river. They were classified in” with “the river. They were classified into”
L 228. Consider replacing “The Fig.2 shows” with “Figure 2 shows”
L 228. Consider replacing “hirudinea, oligochaeta, mollusca and nematoda” with “Hirudinea, Oligochaeta, Mollusca and Nematoda”
L 232. Consider replacing “(at SF1 station) to 0% (at” with “(at the SF1 station) to 0% (at the”
L 233. Consider replacing “BG4 station” with “the BG4 station”
L 246. Consider replacing “SF2 station” with “the SF2 station”
L 247. Consider replacing “SF2 station showed highest” with “the SF2 station showed the highest”
L 256. Consider replacing “Fig.3 shows” with “Figure 3 shows”
L 261. Consider replacing “SF2, SF3, and ZM2 stations” with “The SF2, SF3, and ZM2 stations”
L 268. Consider replacing “its contribution” with “their contribution”
L 269. Consider replacing “the higher dissimilarity” with “the highest dissimilarity”
L 271. Consider replacing “stations” with “the stations”
L 277. Consider replacing “data shows” with “data showed”
L 281. Consider replacing “variables were” with “variables was”
L 290. Consider replacing “shown that the” with “showed that”
L 291. Consider replacing “are due to” with “were due to”
L 294. Consider replacing “on the analyzed macro-benthic community” with “in the analyzed macro-benthic community”
L 301. Consider replacing “of SFR course” with “of the SFR course”
L 313. Consider replacing “through BIOENV procedure” with “through the BIOENV procedure”
L 317. Consider replacing “at BG4 station” with “at the BG4 station”
L 322. Consider replacing “showing SF3” with “showing for SF3”
L 324. Consider replacing “showed for BMWP score results obtained at BG4 and SF2 stations” with “evident for BMWP score results obtained at the BG4 and SF2 stations”
L 338. Consider replacing “on downstream stations. However, BG4 station” with “in downstream stations. However, the BG4 station”
L 348. Consider replacing “anthropogenic impacted” with “anthropogenically impacted”
L 350. Consider replacing “The modified version” with “The modified version of”
L 353. Consider replacing “relationship” with “relationships”
L 364. Consider replacing “are into the rang” with “are in the rang”
L 365. Consider replacing “at BG4 station” with “at the BG4 station”
L 365. Consider replacing “suffering the” with “suffering”
L 368. Consider replacing “surrounding for” with “surrounding”
L 373. Consider replacing “sampled station” with “sampled stations”
L 380. Consider replacing “from the” with “from”
L 381. Consider replacing “located downstream” with “located downstream of”
L 390. Consider replacing “among-sites variances in” with “among-site variances in the”
L 408. Consider replacing “an environmental risk” with “environmental risk”
L 413. Consider replacing “zone between” with “zone between the”
L 414. Consider replacing “the higher” with “the highest”
L 416. Consider replacing “the higher” with “the highest”
L 416. Consider replacing “Also in BG4” with “Also in the BG4”
L 419. Consider replacing “tool to” with “tool for”
L 420. Consider replacing “quality in riverine sediments. Thus, it” with “quality of riverine sediments. Thus, we”
L 439. Consider replacing “quality in the river” with “quality of the river”
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Second Review
Paper title: Integrative assessment of sediment quality in São Francisco River (Mina Gerais, Brazil)
The authors have improved the paper, but some revisions are still needed:
Please include this text in the "Methods" section (L 175): Data were previously checked and/or transformed to ensure normality and heteroscedasticity and conduct the ANOVA test.
L 196. Consider replacing “the greatest element concentration were” with “the greatest element concentrations were”
L 198. Consider replacing “concentrations on Al, As” with “concentrations of Al and As”
L 232. Consider replacing “The Figure 2” with “Figure 2”
L 410. Consider replacing “in SFR basin” with “in the SFR basin”
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Second Review
Paper title: Integrative assessment of sediment quality in Sao Francisco River (Mina Gerais, Brazil)
The authors have improved the paper, but some revisions are still needed.
We are grateful to this review for such a careful reading and revision of our ms. Comments and suggestions were taken into consideration.
Please include this text in the “Methods” section (l. 175): data were previously checked and/or transformed to ensure normality and heteroscedasticity and conduct the ANOVA test.
The text was included in the Methods section
- 196. Consider replacing “the greatest element concentration were” with “the greatest element concentrations were”
This comment was considered and the manuscript was corrected accordingly
- 198 Consider replacing “concentrations on Al, As “with “concentrations of Al and As”
We change the text to meet the reviewer comment
- 232 Consider replacing “The Figure 2” with “Figure 2”
This comment was considered and the article was deleted
- 410 Consider replacing “in SFR basin” with “in the SFR basin”
This comment was considered and the article was added
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
