Preventative Biofouling Monitoring Technique for Sustainable Shipping
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have provided a detailed method for evaluating the extent of biofouling of ships. The process includes using two types of monitoring equipment, incorporating cameras, to provide imaging of the ship’s hull. This, in turn, provides information on the extent of biofouling of the ship. The authors then state that using these types of monitoring can improve understanding the extent of biofouling and how that can relate to reducing the extent of biofouling (by cleaning the ships or using some other method). The authors make the argument that this is important for sustainability due to the increased energy consumption for ships with increased biofouling. As it stands, the paper essentially completes the goal that is set up for this paper. I debate whether there is enough detail in this paper for a full publication. The paper is rather short, but perhaps the paper is sufficient for the goals. As it stands, the paper would greatly benefit from having a native English speaker review the text. There are several instances of incomplete sentences, typographical errors, and grammatical errors. These would need to be fixed before publication. The general construction of the paper is sufficient, though the authors could make stronger arguments, perhaps, if possible, in a quantitative way, for the need for the monitoring they are suggesting. The authors touch on the fact that a cruise ship was turned away because of the extent of biofouling. For “Water,” it might be good to expand on the types of ecological impacts and ramifications of biofouling. For example, the introducing of invasive species from biofouling would be useful. This technique could also be used to evaluate different applications of paints that are designed to limit biofouling. In that way, this method may be useful for others to evaluate these techniques, thus expanding the reach and feasible citations of this work. As it stands, I do see the utility of this work in the broader scientific community. As such, I would recommend this paper be accepted after major revision.
General Comments:
1. The abstract needs a sentence of two on the research approach. Adding a sentence of two after the first sentence, which introduces the problem, would help give the reader an idea of what was done. Something along the lines of “In this study, two types of monitoring equipment were used to…” Then state what the results were. Then you can state that the results suggest that monitoring would …
2. Figure 1 and 2 would be useful to have a scale for the images. The overall size is presented in Table 1, yet it would be useful for the images for the reader to have a scale. The text in the figures would look better if the fontsize were smaller, or if the images were a bit larger. Right now the text dominates Figure 1 and 2.
3. For Section 2.2.3, Observation Illuminance, it is unclear what the actual process is. Is the goal that it uses the eye chart and determines when the last clear image can be seen? This section of the text should be written to be more clear as to what exactly is being done and how illuminance is measured.
4. Figure 6. It’s unclear to me what this figure is showing. Also, the text is hard to reach. This figure would be easier to read if “Daylight Only” and “Supplementary Light” were not rotated. As it stands, the images in Figure 6 are so blurry, it doesn’t provide much useful information. This might be better to translate to a table with numbers rather than as it is. Also, it is unclear what the columns are showing. What is the difference between the first row and the last row
5. Figure 7. Why does illumination drop rapidly in the first 1.5 m and then not drop at all from 1.5 to 3.0 m? I would think that this would follow Beer’s law and decline exponentially until light goes to almost zero, rather than dropping quickly then not at all. Perhaps I’m not understanding exactly what you’re showing here? Could you not calculate a light extinction coefficient from this data?
6. Figure 8. Section 3.3.2. In the text, the authors state “the fishing vessel under test were monitored at port side, bow, amidship, stern and thruster.” Are all images on the port side, and the locations are bow, amidship, stern, and thruster? Is that right? As written, it looks like “port side” is one of the sites of measurement. If you mean all locations are on the port side, then you could write this as “monitored on the port side: bow, amidship, stern and thruster.” Or separate them out to say “All measurement locations were on the port side. Specific locations were: bow, amidship, stern and thruster.” If “port side” were a measurement location, then it should be added in Figure 8.
7. Figure 9 formatting needs to be fixed to match other styles.
8. Section 4.2. Bullet list should have bullets as per Water template guidelines.
9. Something to consider overall is if there is a way to make this work more quantitative versus qualitative. Perhaps it is something to consider on future work rather than here, but I wonder if there is a way to make Figures 8 and 9 have a % cover. For example, when is an area biofouled to such an extent that it needs to be cleaned? For example, looking at Figure 9, “Hull” the “before clean” looks cleaner to my eye than “two month after clean.” Though perhaps this is due to the limited area where the photo was taken. I wonder what the trigger point is that would say “the biofouling has reached a point that requires cleaning. In the abstract, the authors state this work “provides sufficient information for determining when cleaning action best be taken,” but it is unclear to me if there is a quantitative answer to that.
As it stands, this paper needs improvement on the writing. I provide some examples in the specific comments below.
1. Line 23, avoid starting a sentence with “And,” just stated “Compared to various …”
2. Watch use of articles. Line 23 “cleaning at early stage” should be “cleaning at an early stage” and Line 24 “the condition of immersed hull” should be “the condition of an immersed hull”
3. Line 56 switch “cruise Viking Orion” to “Viking Orion cruise ship”
4. Line 59 change “likely to impacts on” to “likely to cause impacts on”
5. Line 60 to 61 “To prevent the entry of biofouling in the first instance, New Zealand require vessel entering New Zealand with a ‘clean hull.’” I’m not clear what this sentence is stating, but I think it needs to be changed to “To prevent the introduction of biofouling species, New Zealand requires vessels to enter the country with a ‘clean hull.’”
6. I’m not going to go through and correct the rest of the paper, but the paper should be reviewed to make sure it is grammatically correct. One last thing is that Figure 9, should have column headings as: “Before cleaning” “One month after clearning” and “Two months after cleaning.”
7. Figure captions should have the first letter capitalized. (Figure 6 and 7)
Author Response
Thank you very much for the help.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Study is relevant and novel. Authors have clearly mentioned the objective of the study. I have following recommendations in order to improve the quality of work-
1. Abstract is too general, few data and finding information can be added.
2. Introduction is well written, recent studies can be cited in order to identify the research gap.
3. GIS based map can be given if possible as it will give clear picture and location of study area.
4. As algae and microbes are responsible for Biofouling process, if it has been identified it can be more effective information for researchers and scientists working in this field.
4. Any statistical analysis is not done during the experiment. It's better to apply statistics wherever needed.
5. Although few similar studies has cited, I suggest to provide a comparison table to showcase the data obtained in previous studies as well as in the current study.
Overall study is novel, english can be improved and a seperate recommendation section is needed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your interest in reducing the negative effects of human activities on the oceans.
Attached you'll find the documents with my comments.
Moreover, since the study is based exclusively on images I think that their quality must be much better in the work.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for the help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Review comments on Wu et al
Preventative biofouling monitoring technique for sustainable shipping
The aim of the study was to describe a preventative biofouling monitoring technique to quickly assess levels of biofouling on the hull of commercial shipping. To achieve this aim, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with a variety of experts with knowledge of this topic. The paper describes the five questions that the authors interviewed for each study participant. They then present and analyse the results from the different study participants interviews, to assess similarities and differences in the responses of the different interview participants to the research questions. The results of the study showed that patents and prices are not major barries to accessibility. However, they identified a variety of other problems related to local production, regulations and licences, technology transfers and pharmaceutical companies pricing strategies for vaccines as issues requiring further investigation and if required, to be addressed.
Overall, the data presented in the paper achieves the study aims and provides an original contribution to improving our knowledge about monitoring techniques for monitoring fouling of ship hulls. The authors determined the optimal shooting distance from the hull and the water depth to monitor the biofouling on the hull.As such, I consider that a revised paper incorporating the marked comments on the attached PDF and addressing the comments detailed below could be resubmitted for assessment for publication.
Specific comments on the manuscript are detailed below.
Given that the author’s first language is not English, I have marked on the attached PDF document, numerous suggested spelling and grammatical changes to improve the quality and flow of the manuscript. The authors should review these changes and have the manuscript reviewed before resubmission.
In particular, the number of spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript indicates that the authors have not bothered to undertake a basic spelling and grammar check of the manuscript using a word processing program or had the document review before submitting to the journal. This review should be undertaken prior to resubmitting the manuscript.
In this study the authors state that two vessels were assessed. However it is difficult to determine which vessel is being referred too in the text and images. For example, I assume that figures 8 and nine are the two vessels. If this is so the it should be clearly indicted in the figure captions an the text which is usually referring to a single vessel.
Lines 30-31 ….to develop into a complete system under the right environmental conditions [5].
What does ..develop into a complete system… mean? Do you mean a diverse biofouling community?
Lines 32-33 should the term be dry docking?
Line 36-37 Using fluid dynamics (CFD) method on container ships….. What does this phrase mean. Also define what CFD means.
Line 39 what does the phrase …biofilm period….. mean? The text should be revised to clarify.
Line 65 what does the phrase ….and further to protist imbalances [8]. mean? The text should be revised to clarify.
Lines 70-71 This sentence below doesn’t make sense. Revise or delete.
The burden of pollution is generally least able to be controlled adequately.
Lines 90-91 This sentence below doesn’t make sense. Are the authors referring to total ATP concentrations or some other measure?
Total direct cell indicating the concentration of microorganisms [31].
Lines 320-321 This sentence below doesn’t make sense The text should be revised to clarify.
Global issues related to climate change have arisen discussions and actions around the world [45].
There are several issues with the references with inconsistencies between format of different references. For some references, the first letter of each word in the paper title is capitalised and should be lower case. In other references, only the first word in the title is capitalised. Different references are in different fonts indicating that the authors have just cut and pasted the references form different sources and have not bothered to check the formatting. The authors should check previous issues of the journal regarding presentation of references.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for the help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. The English, grammar, and spelling are much improved, though there are still some errors that need to be addressed.
The section number is no longer in order. It jumps from 2.1.3 to 2.3. There is no 2.2.
Figure 8. Column three needs to be plural: Two months after cleaning
Table 4 has formatting issues. Make sure each heading is clear and columns are lined up properly. It's still unclear to me what exactly Figure 4 is showing.
Line 357, I would delete "e.g." I would prefer to see this sentence be more precise. What type of questions are answered? Then rather than saying "e.g." say "including how to apply..." Saying "this research helps answer questions" is too vague for the first sentence of the conclusion.
I'd suggest restructuring the Conclusions to be one or two paragraphs. This reads as almost a bulleted list, which is ok, but there isn't a need for each sentence to be its own paragraph.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have incorporated all the comments.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find attached my comments.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Review comments on revised Wu et al
Preventative biofouling monitoring technique for sustainable shipping
The authors have address the comments based on the original version of the manuscript. I have made some more minor changes on the word document. These additional comments are marked as track changes in blue compared wit the authors changes made in red in the Word document. The layout of figure 4 needs to be revised based on the PDF version. Also figure 3 Chasing M2 is called figure 3 in the PDF. There is also some differences in the revised PDF and the word document e. g. line 433 of the PDF the order number of the references needs to be updated. The reference number order is correct in the word document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, in my opinion, the work is improved compared to the initial one and can be published, thus opening the possibility to deepen the field and come up with other results in the future. Best regards
