Risk Assessment of a Coastal Ecosystem from SW Spain Exposed to CO2 Enrichment Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would firstly like to thank the reviewer for your time and contribution towards improving the manuscript. The reviewers’ advices have been addressed to improve the article. Following it can be found the list of answers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes the the use of a Weight-of-Evidence approach to assess the risk of acidification promoted by CO2 enrichment in a coastal ecosystem from SW Spain. After reviewing it, I think it can be consider to publish if the following issues are solved:
The Weight-of-Evidence approach is based on the use of multiple lines of evidence, was used to analyze the adverse effects associated with CO2 enrichment in two stations with different contamination degrees from the Gulf of Cádiz (Spain). The details of this method should be discussed in the introduction part and the recent achievements of this area should be summarized.
Author Response
The authors would firstly like to thank the reviewer for your time and contribution towards improving the manuscript. The reviewers’ advices have been addressed to improve the article.
Following the reviewer´s suggestion more information was added in the introduction and discussion section. In the introduction section we have described and discussion about the weight of evidence method and is currently used in environmental risk characterization studies.
Reviewer 3 Report
"The use of a Weight-of-Evidence approach to assess the risk of acidification promoted by CO2 enrichment in a coastal ecosystem from SW Spain" analyze the effects of CO2 enrichment using the Weight of evidence approach. Deepening the knowledge of how a pollutant affects ecological systems and human health will always be crucial and of interest to the journal's readers.
Overall:
1) The article is generally well written; however, some details of grammar and format were found. Please revise.
2) I found too many phrases similar to the document "Sediment Contamination and Toxicity in the Guadalquivir River (Southwest, Spain)" from applied science MDPI and "Chapter Seven - Integrating causes and effects in CO2 acidification (Elsevier)" please review, paraphrase, and change the wording.
By section:
I think the title of the document can be improved
Methodology
1) How or why were these other lines of evidence selected?
2) It would be important to place a flowchart of the methodology, including the WOE approach and the LOEs
Results
1) The text:" Results using the ecological integrity showed a clear decrease in the total abundance, richness and diversity of benthic fauna for pH 6.0 when compared to the control for both sediment samples tested" refers to this manuscript's results. Why is referred to another article? If the results are from other documents, why are mentioned in this one? Please clarify in the manuscript text.
2) The title of the section "pie chart" should be changed
3) On page 17, under Figure 5, it is mentioned that "Moreover, the results of factor scores confirm those reported previously using the different WOE that showed low levels of metal contamination in the sediment (Factor 2)." What are these results previously reported? The reference is missing.
Conclusion.
1) Based on your results, please add the risks associated with CO2 enrichment and how it affects ecosystems and human health. It only mentions that there are adverse effects; what are these effects?
Author Response
The authors would firstly like to thank the reviewer for your time and contribution towards improving the manuscript. The reviewers’ advices have been addressed to improve the article. Following it can be found the list of answers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors tried to revise the manuscript based on the reviewer comments. Though there is a lack in some section like error bar in table 2 and discussion section, authors addressed all the comments carefully. I suggest the authors to rectify the comments mentioned in review 1 during proof correction. Based on this, the manuscript can be published in the Applied Sciences.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have rightly made the suggested improvements; therefore, I recommend publishing the manuscript in its current state.
