Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a sound paper, which is well presented, dealing with the influence of environmental parameters (especially heavy metal contaminants) on the diversity and structure of macrozoobenthic communities in three types of harbors (commercial, fishing and recreational) on the central part of the Tunisian coast. It is a very interesting topic as it can be served as one of the best practices example for the assessment of the Ecological Quality Status in a given area. The sampling scheme, stations and all parameters are adequately described being sufficient for the authors to present their rationale. Studies collected from the bibliographic research are also sufficient. Specific comments have been made directly in the text for more clarity. However, these comments are of minor importance and I recommend publication of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Contamination and Ecological Quality Status of central Tunisian harbours

(jmse-1905993-)

 

The title is changed to :

Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

 

Nourhene REBAI, Nawfel MOSBAHI, Jean-Claude DAUVIN and Lassad NEIFAR

 

Firstly, the authors thank the reviewers for their very useful and interesting comments and suggestions on the first version of our paper.

 

The all corrections are added in red color in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer A

 

• The all requested form remarks are added in the text (in red color)
• Table contain species-by-samples was added in supplementary material (Appendix 2)

Reviewer B

1. Title: I think the title must reflect the fact that you studied HM contamination on macrobenthos. The current title is non-descriptive.

We have changed the title as: Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

2. There is a lot of use of citing papers as [] without the author names. For example, line 60 reads 'In the Gulf of Tunis, [23] had shown.......'. It (and subsequent others) should include the authors. Thus, 'In the Gulf of Tunis, Ennouri et al. [23] found diverse.......'.

Done, the author names are added in the ms.

3. In the Introduction, change ' has shown ' to 'showed'.

Done

4. Line 86, Correct 'metals' to 'metal'

Done

5. Line 115. What was the mesh size used? This is critical.

The mesh size was added (1mm), which is recommended for macrobenthic study.

6. Line 121 and throughout. Correct 'The Chlorophyll a....' to just 'chlorophyll'

Done

7. Line 141. Fluorine, Phosphorus and Nitrogen are NOT heavy metals!!! Also, use lower case for all elements here.

The sentence was corrected

8. Section 2.4. Data Analysis is excessively long. Please reference tests wherever possible.

10 sentences are deleted in the Data analysis section.

9. Line 215. Start with 'Water-column temperature and salinity......

Done

10. Throughout the Results, the present tense is used. For example, line 218, 'dissolved oxygen concentrations show a....' should be past tense so it should be 'showed' not 'show'.

Done, the verbs were added in past tense

11. Delete the term 'studied harbours' to just 'harbours'.

Done, the term was changed

12. Section 3.4 starts off with the total number of individuals. So what? What most benthic ecologists want to know is abundance per square meter, diversity, etc. I strongly urge you to begin this section with the line 281 that starts with 'Abundance ranged from ..........." followed by the remaining sentences in the fourth paragraph.

Section 3.4 was changed

13. Italicise genus and species for all organisms cited. DO NOT cite the original taxonomist such as Fabricius, 1780 forCapitella capitata.

The all species are italicised; also, the original taxonomist for all species was deleted. 

14. The Discussion should start with a topic paragraph summarizing the major results. Did you find an impact of the heavy metal pollution on the macrobenthic fauna, either in terms of abundance and/or diversity?

The first paragraph of the discussion was reformulated. 

15. The Conclusion is very weak and says little regarding the main 'take home' points.

Some sentences are added in the conclusion

16. I strongly urge that all 7 tables, except for Table 2, go into the Appendix.  Delete 'Tunisian standards' column in Table 2. 

'Tunisian standards' column was deleted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript assesses the impact of heavy metal contamination in macrobenthos of three Tunisian harbors. While the work was through in terms of sampling design and statistical analysis, there are quite a few issues with the text, tables and figures that require significant revision. The text in general is very verbose and needs to be cut down.

1. Title: I think the title must reflect the fact that you studied HM contamination on macrobenthos. The current title is non-descriptive.

2. There is a lot of use of citing papers as [] without the author names. For example, line 60 reads 'In the Gulf of Tunis, [23] had shown.......'. It (and subsequent others) should include the authors. Thus, 'In the Gulf of Tunis, Ennouri et al. [23] found diverse.......'.

3. In the Introduction, change 'has shown' to 'showed'.

4. Line 86, Correct 'metals' to 'metal'

5. Line 115. What was the mesh size used? This is critical.

6. Line 121 and throughout. Correct 'The Chlorophyll a....' to just 'chlorophyll'

7. Line 141. Fluorine, Phosphorus and Nitrogen are NOT heavy metals!!! Also, use lower case for all elements here.

8. Section 2.4. Data Analysis is excessively long. Please reference tests wherever possible.

9. Line 215. Start with 'Water-column temperature and salinity......

10. Throughout the Results, the present tense is used. For example, line 218, 'dissolved oxygen concentrations show a....' should be past tense so it should be 'showed' not 'show'.

11. Delete the term 'studied harbours' to just 'harbours'.

12. Section 3.4 starts off with the total number of individuals. So what? What most benthic ecologists want to know is abundance per square meter, diversity, etc. I strongly urge you to begin this section with the line 281 that starts with 'Abundance ranged from ..........." followed by the remaining sentences in the fourth paragraph.

13. Italicise genus and species for all organisms cited. DO NOT cite the original taxonomist such as Fabricius, 1780 for Capitella capitata.

14. The Discussion should start with a topic paragraph summarizing the major results. Did you find an impact of the heavy metal pollution on the macrobenthic fauna, either in terms of abundance and/or diversity?

15. The Conclusion is very weak and says little regarding the main 'take home' points.

16. I strongly urge that all 7 tables, except for Table 2, go into the Appendix.  Delete 'Tunisian standards' column in Table 2. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Contamination and Ecological Quality Status of central Tunisian harbours

(jmse-1905993-)

 

The title is changed to :

Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

 

Nourhene REBAI, Nawfel MOSBAHI, Jean-Claude DAUVIN and Lassad NEIFAR

 

Firstly, the authors thank the reviewers for their very useful and interesting comments and suggestions on the first version of our paper.

 

The all corrections are added in red color in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer A

 

• The all requested form remarks are added in the text (in red color)
• Table contain species-by-samples was added in supplementary material (Appendix 2)

Reviewer B

1. Title: I think the title must reflect the fact that you studied HM contamination on macrobenthos. The current title is non-descriptive.

We have changed the title as: Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

2. There is a lot of use of citing papers as [] without the author names. For example, line 60 reads 'In the Gulf of Tunis, [23] had shown.......'. It (and subsequent others) should include the authors. Thus, 'In the Gulf of Tunis, Ennouri et al. [23] found diverse.......'.

Done, the author names are added in the ms.

3. In the Introduction, change ' has shown ' to 'showed'.

Done

4. Line 86, Correct 'metals' to 'metal'

Done

5. Line 115. What was the mesh size used? This is critical.

The mesh size was added (1mm), which is recommended for macrobenthic study.

6. Line 121 and throughout. Correct 'The Chlorophyll a....' to just 'chlorophyll'

Done

7. Line 141. Fluorine, Phosphorus and Nitrogen are NOT heavy metals!!! Also, use lower case for all elements here.

The sentence was corrected

8. Section 2.4. Data Analysis is excessively long. Please reference tests wherever possible.

10 sentences are deleted in the Data analysis section.

9. Line 215. Start with 'Water-column temperature and salinity......

Done

10. Throughout the Results, the present tense is used. For example, line 218, 'dissolved oxygen concentrations show a....' should be past tense so it should be 'showed' not 'show'.

Done, the verbs were added in past tense

11. Delete the term 'studied harbours' to just 'harbours'.

Done, the term was changed

12. Section 3.4 starts off with the total number of individuals. So what? What most benthic ecologists want to know is abundance per square meter, diversity, etc. I strongly urge you to begin this section with the line 281 that starts with 'Abundance ranged from ..........." followed by the remaining sentences in the fourth paragraph.

Section 3.4 was changed

13. Italicise genus and species for all organisms cited. DO NOT cite the original taxonomist such as Fabricius, 1780 forCapitella capitata.

The all species are italicised; also, the original taxonomist for all species was deleted. 

14. The Discussion should start with a topic paragraph summarizing the major results. Did you find an impact of the heavy metal pollution on the macrobenthic fauna, either in terms of abundance and/or diversity?

The first paragraph of the discussion was reformulated. 

15. The Conclusion is very weak and says little regarding the main 'take home' points.

Some sentences are added in the conclusion

16. I strongly urge that all 7 tables, except for Table 2, go into the Appendix.  Delete 'Tunisian standards' column in Table 2. 

'Tunisian standards' column was deleted

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although this revision is much improved, further improvements are necessary for the manuscript to be acceptable for publication.

1. The multivariate analysis section is much too long; surely some of the tests can be cited from the literature?

2. 'showed' is used too much and incorrectly. It would be more precise to use 'were'. line 225 should read 'Sediment type and organic matter content (Table 1) were significantly different between the harbors.'

3. Please move Tables 5 and 6 to the appendices.

Author Response

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering: 09-10-2022

 

Response to Reviewers

Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours. (New title)

 

Nourhene REBAI, Nawfel MOSBAHI, Jean-Claude DAUVIN and Lassad NEIFAR

 

The authors thank the reviewers for their very useful and interests comments and suggestions on the second revised version of this paper, and we will be happy for any further modifications or corrections.

 

The all corrections are added

 

Reviewer

1. The multivariate analysis section is much too long; surely some of the tests can be cited from the literature?

14 sentences are deleted and replaced by two references in the multivariate analysis.

2. 'showed' is used too much and incorrectly. It would be more precise to use 'were'. OK

line 225 should read 'Sediment type and organic matter content (Table 1) were significantly different between the harbors.' Done

3. Please move Tables 5 and 6 to the appendices.

The two tables are placed in the appendices (see Appendix 3 and 4)

Finally, Many thanks for the reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions on the first and second version of the typescript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This second version is now acceptable for publication after correction of minor grammatical mistakes (there are many words mid-sentence that should not be capitalized).

Author Response

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering: 18-10-2022

 

Response to Reviewer comments

 

Ecological risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Environmental Quality of Tunisian Harbours

 

 

Nourhene REBAI, Nawfel MOSBAHI, Jean-Claude DAUVIN and Lassad NEIFAR

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

The authors thank the reviewers for their last comments and suggestions on the third round of the revision of our article, and we will be very happy for any further corrections.

 

Response to referee comments

 

The few minor corrections are added directly in the text (with the green color).

 

 

We hope that this present version should be published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

 

J.C Dauvin

(On behalf of the authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf