Impact of Environmental Conditions on the Health of the Far Eastern Region Population
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article lacks clear and useful objectives for the protection of public health.
The use of the calculation is not easy to implement nor clear.
The artcylum is many gaps, the authors did not even take care of the minimum form (see table 4 remained with the raw data)
Author Response
Dear reviewer! Unfortunately Your remark is not clear to us. In our article there are only 8 equations. Explain about what equation (10) are you talking about?
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is potentially an interesting study but overall requires a lot of work. See comments below.
Introduction: line 36 you mention area, can you also mention population? (I think the first paragraph of your results could be moved to the introduction)
your aim as currently stated is : “to justify the need to create functional foods in the context of the influence of the environment on the health of the population in the Far Eastern region.” I think that your paper should be reframed so that this is at most a paragraph or so in the discussion.
as it is, you mention several aims in your methods:
line 64: I think some sort of time trend analysis where you look at patterns of disease
line 68 paragraph, and line 71 paragraph may deal with other analyses.
so change these things (like what you report in the Tables in the results) into aims. Something like: We aimed to build regression models to characterize the interrelationships between health and environmental pollutants…
I personally don’t understand the equations in Tables 2 and 3 – a specialist will have to look at them, but at the very least they should be explained in methods. (and again, added as aims)
Table 4: in columns and rows, write what each refers to. E.g., for rows you could write : A. air pollution, B. water pollution” and then for columns just write “A, B, C ….”
And as mentioned previously, talk briefly about functional foods if you want in discussion, but don’t put them in your title or your aims.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! We do not understand about what equation on page 9 we have to interpret if the publication contains only 8 pages.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was revised more. It's ok
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
Thank you for the careful study of our manuscript and the comments made.
We have improved the manuscript. Changes in the sections "Introduction", "Methods" and "Conclusion".
Corrected are sections "Introduction", "Methods" and "Conclusion"
Best Regards,
Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file for some comments on certain lines. i think there is a mismatch between methods and results section. the methods section should describe "how" you did something, and the results are "what" you found. so move more stuff from the results into the methods.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
Thank you for the careful study of our manuscript and the comments made.
The following changes were made in the manuscript:
Corrected are sections "Introduction", "Methods" and "Conclusion"
Best Regards,
Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your corrections. No further comments.
