Elemental Composition and Freezing Tolerance in High Arctic Fishes and Invertebrates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (MS) was designed to measure trace elements in some fish and four invertebrates to detect the levels of the elements. Anti-freezer is very interesting subject in the MS. The MS discussed then edible concentrations. The MS could be shortened particularly in the material and methods relating to the elements methods. The methods could be written not detailed as much as it is in current version of the MS. Instead, analyses of elements would be kept to standard methods, giving only name of the methods in the reference. In current form of the MS, Tables and Figures are missing in the submitted text. Without seeing them, it is hard to evaluate discussion and material and methods properly. Even if I informed editorial board writing an e mail to add the missing Tables and Figures I have not received them yet. 

The language and style and syntax errors and misspelled words are available too much in the MS. e.g. Gadus morhu, Polychaete (not genus and species) in italic, no space between two words etc.

In this current form I could uncompleted my review due to lack of Tables and Figures in the MS I downloaded from the editorial system, the MS need major revision particularly in Mat and Met, and Discussion and syntax errors. 

Author Response

Sir/Madam,

1. As advised, MS shortened in the material and methods.
2. Tables and figure added.
3. Language and errors corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

the ms entitled “Elemental composition and freezing tolerance in high Arctic fishes and invertebrates” focuses on the environmental burden on arctic aquatic animals (fish and invertebrates).

The topic is of great interest to the scientific community and the results presented here are interesting and provide some good initial research results combining the impact of elemental concentrations on aquatic animals.

The hypotheses and methods of the ms are not clearly stated in the present study

On the methodology please explain briefly the number of the samples that were collected?  and give more information about the age, or fishing gear(lines 91-96).

several parts of the text should be rewritten, such as , lines 84-85,  lines 269-270 etc.

the conclusions state the feasibility of the study without focusing on the practical application to the ecosystem and the question arises, how this result translates into practice? Can you explain briefly?

Author Response

Sir/Madam,

1. Hypothesis, and methods modified.
2. Number of samples and other relevant informations added in Tables.
3. Several parts of text rewritten and highlighted for your kind reference.
4. Conclusion modified and highlighted.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is ready to be accepted for a publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

According to the ms resubmitted, and revised by the authors, I think this manuscript fulfills the criteria for publication in the present form.

accepted in  present form