Toxic and Trace Elements in Seaweeds from a North Atlantic Ocean Region (Tenerife, Canary Islands)
, Carmen Rubio-Armendáriz 1, Inmaculada Frías 2, Fernando Guillén-Pino 2, Daniel Niebla-Canelo 1, Samuel Alejandro-Vega 1, Ángel J. Gutiérrez 1, Arturo Hardisson 1 and Dailos González-Weller 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reviews the Toxic and Trace Elements in Seaweeds from a North Atlantic Ocean region (Tenerife, Canary Islands) . This article is an interesting article that would be well suited for readers of the Journal. It may be considered for publication after major revisions.
- In the present study, there is not sufficient novelty and this should be highlighted in the manuscript.
- The standard deviation of Fe and Al are ±1,545 and ±157 (Line 20 and 21 in Abstract section). The authors should explain why standard deviations are so high in these data.
- It is essential that authors demonstrate their originality by fully justifying their work. In order to accomplish this, it should be compared with previously published materials that serve the same purpose. Authors should elaborate on the significance of their work.
- The abstract should be rewritten. It is important to emphasize quantitatively the main results.
- Describe in one to three sentences the significance of the work in the introduction.
- Algae are the best bioindicators of marine pollution, and they may be used for bioremediation in contaminated environments (Line 56). Add more details in this paragraph about it and water pollution. This can be improved by suggesting relevant references. Fuel. 311, 122543; J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106160; Environ. Res. 207, 112609;
- The conclusions summarize the main findings of your research as well as describe how your research contributes to the field in a different manner than previous research.
Author Response
Comment: This manuscript reviews the Toxic and Trace Elements in Seaweeds from a North Atlantic Ocean region (Tenerife, Canary Islands) . This article is an interesting article that would be well suited for readers of the Journal. It may be considered for publication after major revisions.
Response: The authors thank the reviewer for their interest and kind words.
Comment: In the present study, there is not sufficient novelty and this should be highlighted in the manuscript.
Response: Authors thanks the reviewer their advice, therefore a new paragraph (Lines 263-265) has been added where the limitations are highlighted.
Comment: The standard deviation of Fe and Al are ±1,545 and ±157 (Line 20 and 21 in Abstract section). The authors should explain why standard deviations are so high in these data.
Response: Authors have added an explanation in the results sections (Lines 162-166).
Comment: It is essential that authors demonstrate their originality by fully justifying their work. In order to accomplish this, it should be compared with previously published materials that serve the same purpose. Authors should elaborate on the significance of their work.
Response: Authors also consider the comparison of results with previously published materials an important part of any research. Therefore, in order to improve this section two references have been added to the other already six cited references used for this purpose in Lines 167-201 227-241.
Added References:
Moreda-Piñeiro, J.; Moreda-Piñeiro, A.; Romarís-Hortas, V.; Domínguez-González, R.; Alonso-Rodríguez, E.; López-Mahía, P.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; Prada-Rodríguez, D.; Bermejo-Barrera, P. Trace metals in marine foodstuff: Bioavailability estimation and effect of major food constituents. Food Chem. 2012, 134, 339-345.
García-Casal, M. N.; Pereira, A. C.; Leets, I.; Ramírez, J.; Quiroga, M. F. High Iron Content and Bioavailability in Humans from Four Species of Marine Algae. J. Nutr. 2007, 137, 2691-2695.
Comment: The abstract should be rewritten. It is important to emphasize quantitatively the main results.
Response: Abstract has been modified to achieve more emphasize in the results and their relevance.
Comment: Describe in one to three sentences the significance of the work in the introduction.
Response: A new paragraph have been added at the introduction which summarise the significance of this study. (Lines 82-84)
Comment: Algae are the best bioindicators of marine pollution, and they may be used for bioremediation in contaminated environments (Line 56). Add more details in this paragraph about it and water pollution. This can be improved by suggesting relevant references. Fuel. 311, 122543; J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106160; Environ. Res. 207, 112609;
Response: Authors thank the reviewer the references suggested. They are very interesting with a big relevance. Therefore Fuel. 311, 122543; J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106160 and Environ. Res. 207, 112609 and other three references have been added in Lines 62-65.
Comment: The conclusions summarize the main findings of your research as well as describe how your research contributes to the field in a different manner than previous research.
Response: Authors thank the reviewer for their kind words.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript (ID: sustainability-1715100) titled ( Toxic and Trace Elements in Seaweeds from a North Atlantic Ocean region (Tenerife, Canary Islands) needs Major revisions before publication. The introduction is insufficient and needs more reviews about the importance of seaweeds. I attached the suggested corrections in the attached pdf.
Best Regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment: (Original paper Line 12) https://doi.org/10.3390/ECERPH-3-09010 This paper was published before as a conference paper in: The 3rd International Electronic Conference on Environmental Research and Public Health —Public Health Issues in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Response: Part of this research was presented before in the 3rd International Electronic Conference on Environmental Research and Public Health —Public Health Issues in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, it was not as a conference paper, it was as a poster. Therefore, publishing now as a paper allow the authors show their results, methodology and other information in detail.
Comment: (Original paper Line 14) Italic. In all Manuscript, why author make the scientific name of the two seaweed types regular, please, make it Italic
Response: Authors apologize for these typos. The text has been changed accordingly.
Comment: The Reviewer highlighted a series of grammatical and orthographic errors throughout all the paper.
Response: Authors thank the reviewer for their highlights. Changes have been made accordingly.
Comment: The Reviewer highlighted a series of typos like km2 and CO3 and other superscripts or subscripts.
Response: In the original word uploaded to the websites these typos didn’t exist. It could have been an error in the upload process that has changed the font and format. In the modified version of the paper that has been uploaded authors has paid special attention to this issue so it doesn’t repeat again.
Comment: (Original paper Lines 45-46) Change to: ... diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) , green algae (Chlorophyta), brown algae (Phycophyta), and red algae (Rhodophyta).
Response: Authors thank the reviewer for their suggestion. The text has been modified accordingly.
Comment: (Original paper Lines 56-57) This sentence needs to be rewritten. Authors may use the following articles to stand out the seaweed applications in different fields, such as aquaculture, agriculture and bio-remediation:
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071375
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10061045
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736915
Response: The authors thank the reviewer for their suggestions and the very interesting and relevance references suggested. Therefore, the authors have made changes in the paragraph and the suggested references have been added, same as other three references.
Comment: (Original paper Line 69) the growth of what ?? please, add more explain.
Response: The sentence has been changed in other to accomplish the suggestion.
Comment: (Original paper Line 87) samples
Response: The word “algae” has been changed to “samples”.
Comment: (Original paper Line 139) No need to separate Tables 3 and 4. Please, merge them in one Table.
Response: Even though authors agree with the reviewer, and think that there’s not need to separate the content of Table 3 and 4, we believe that doing this accomplishes the objective of showing the results in the easiest, most understandable way possible for the reader.
Comment: (Original paper Line 155) This Fig didn't add any significant value. Please, delete.
Response: The figure has been deleted.
Comment: (Original paper Line 157) too much to use "stand out", try to use another word.
Response: Authors thank the reviewer for their suggestion. Other words or expressions have been used instead of “stand out”.
Comment: (Original paper Line 160; 162; 164; 166) follow J. guideline
Response: The authors have removed the direct mention of the reference authors names and only left the reference number ej; [42]
Comment: (Original paper Line 202) Delete
Response: The paragraph has been changed accordingly the reviewer suggestion.
Comment: (Original paper Line 215) Axis titles should be provided
Response: Axis titles have been added to the legend under the figure.
Comment: (Original paper Table 5) please, make some effort in writing the refs. It's too difficult to understand !!!
Response: Authors would like to apologize for this mistake. References have been changed to number format.
Comment: (Original paper Line 226) What is the number of this ref. please, follow the J. guidelines.
Response: It has been corrected.
Comment: (Original paper Line 112) There is no need to these Tables (1 and 2), just mentioned the Ref. Please, explain
Response: Authors have rephrased the sentence where Table 2 appear. However we believe that the sentence “Table 1 shows the wavelengths (nm) of each element analysed” can’t be changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in its present form
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their response. TI thinks that the paper is accepted and ready for publication. One more thing, I encourage authors to revise the scientific names one more time. I observed that some scientific names are not italic and the "spp" is a regular, not italic. Please, check it for last time.
Best Regards
Reviewer #
