Water Quality and Microbiological Contamination across the Fish Marketing Chain: A Case Study in the Peruvian Amazon (Lagoon Yarinacocha)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article overall is clear and well-written. I like the fact that the authors' analysis extends from the lagoon's surface water to the fish market (facilities and operators) and the fish sold. However, I feel the linkages between these stages is weakly discussed, which is a pity. The results part is organized quite simply: 3.1 surface water, 3.2 fish market, 3.3 fish sold ; which is fine, but for the discussion I would have expected something more transversal. Also, some more details on possible solutions should be added in the discussion.
Some minor comments:
- fig 1: this is a very big scale figure (South America -> Peru -> Ucayali). Personally, I'd prefer a map of the lagoon, with the sampling locations and the fish market.
- l99: typo "150 m. m from shore".
- tables 2 & 3: maybe add the references values from MINAM in the tables?
- l296-297: "[...] high levels of microbiological contaminants in the landing facilities and the handlers, but not in the fish sold". I think this sentence needs more moderating. The authors have shown that Palometa contains unhealthy levels of Staphylococcus aureus.
- fig 2: I don't see the added value of this figure.
- The conclusion could be a bit longer. The authors may summarize what their recommendations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1; Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the manuscript. We consider that they are quite important for a better version of the manuscript. We have paid attention mainly to the point of discussion that tries to propose possible solutions to the findings found in the research Kind regardsAuthor Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Analysis of surface water quality, processing, and fishery products sold at the Yarinacocha lagoon landing stage in the Peruvian Amazon- The authors tried to illustrate the importance of water quality, and the contamination of surface water in lagoons that are a common problem in developing countries, affecting mainly fishing activities. The importance of the present study was described, methods were clearly delivered and it can be replicated by any researcher in the future. Results are well presented according to the objectives of the study. My only concern is the Conclusion part. The authors can extend it a bit more by posing a couple of recommendations for the improvement of water quality.The limitation of the present research if there is any and obviously the research gap or further research that can be done in the future. Finally, the English can be revised with the help of a Native.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2; Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the manuscript. We consider that they are quite important for a better version of the manuscript. We have paid attention mainly to the point of discussion and conclusions where possible solutions to the findings found in the research are proposed. Regarding the English language, we have already had the support of a native speaker, but this time it would take a long time to review the manuscript again, so we have tried to fine-tune the language syntax details as well as possible. Kind regardsAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
