Microplastics Residence Time in Marine Copepods: An Experimental Study
, Montaha Behbehani 1, Nazima Habibi 1,*, Scott W. Fowler 2,†, Hanan A. Al-Sarawi 3 and Carlos Alonso-Hernandez 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear
This research meets the requirements of the journal. It is considered that it should be published in its current state.
Author Response
We are thankful for your support. The reply is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Well written. Can improve the methodology section with detailed experimental design and correct the spelling for nauplii.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for the support and appreciation. The reply is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review for the paper "Microplastics residence time in marine copepods: An experimental study" by Saif Uddin, Montaha Behbehani, Nazima Habibi, Scott W. Fowler, Hanan A. Al-Sarawi and Carlos Alonso-Hernandez submitted to "Sustainability".
General comment.
Microplastic (MP) pollution is a complex problem with significant environmental and public health implications. The overall attention to this issue has been immense and perhaps unlike any other pollution issue in the history of science. The scientific literature documenting plastics in aquatic environments and wildlife has grown exponentially, with increasing focus on the presence and effects of microplastics on various marine species. The present study deals with the assessment of short-term exposure to MPs on two copepod species. The authors conducted an experimental study and found that most of the ingested MP was evacuated from the gut within 1 h after ingestion. Larger particles were found to be non-preferred items for Parvocalanus crassirostis and Acartia pacifica. The authors suggested that small MP particles would have a greater effect on zooplankton taxa. The study is well designed and the main results are relevant. I have only minor suggestions to improve the paper.
Specific remarks.
Please specify the type of paper. I recommend "Communication".
L65. Consider replacing "50 µ" with "50 µm".
Material and Methods. I suggest specifying the coordinates of the sampling location.
Materials and Methods. Statistical methods are not described, although the authors noted statistically significant excretion rates for Parvocalanus crassirostis and Acartia pacifica and provided a p-value < 0.001. Please carefully describe all statistical methods used in the research.
Fig. 1. Parvocalanus crassirostis and Acartia pacifica must be in italics.
A short summary at the end of the manuscript, focusing on the possible ecological implications and application of the main results, should be included in the paper.
Minor edition.
Author Response
We are thankful to the reviewer for your pertinent suggestions. We have taken them into consideration while revising the manuscript. The pointwise reply is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are very thankful for your detailed comments and suggestions. We have taken them into consideration while revising the manuscript. We hope you will find it acceptable. A point-wise reply is appended.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
