A Newly Developed Approach for Analyzing the Degradation of Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Different Salinity Levels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. First of all, the title does not show the work of the study. Thus, I suggest “A newly develop approach to analyzing glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in different salinity of seawater”.
2. An proper objective statement should be provided based on the issues raised in the background of the abstract.
3. The abbreviations SPR and HPLC-MS/MS are not necessary in the abstract.
4. The methods are a bit confusing due to the lack of treatment description. This makes the results barely understandable in the abstract.
5. The results of the abstract are too little. Significant findings should be highlighted here.
6. Keywords should be arranged alphabetically.
7. Many statements in the introduction should go along with literatures, e.g. lines 26–29, 35–37, 39–41, 64–70, 72–84, and 94–96.
8. The paragraph in lines 72–84 should be placed first.
9. Since the abstract is a separate part from the main text, abbreviations should be redone in the text.
10. The materials are missing in the materials and methods. There should be a subsection descripting sample collection.
11. Tables and Figures should be self-explainable. Thus, notes should be made below them.
12. The quality of figures should be improved.
13. The conclusion should emphasize the findings rather than summarize the whole study like an abstract. Thus, the current conclusions should be rewritten.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1:
- First of all, the title does not show the work of the study. Thus, I suggest “A newly develop approach to analyzing glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in different salinity of seawater”.
Response: Agree. We have changed the title in revised manuscript. Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- An proper objective statement should be provided based on the issues raised in the background of the abstract.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 13).
- The abbreviations SPR and HPLC-MS/MS are not necessary in the abstract.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript to delete these two abbreviations.
- The methods are a bit confusing due to the lack of treatment description. This makes the results barely understandable in the abstract.
Response: We have revised the abstract (line 20-22). Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- The results of the abstract are too little. Significant findings should be highlighted here.
Response: We have improved the results of the abstract in our revised manuscript (line 19, 22-26). Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- Keywords should be arranged alphabetically.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 27).
- Many statements in the introduction should go along with literatures, e.g. lines 26–29, 35–37, 39–41, 64–70, 72–84, and 94–96.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly and cited relevant references. Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- The paragraph in lines 72–84 should be placed first.
Response: We have chosen not to move the paragraph, as it effectively connects to our specific aim of investigating the impact of microbial and salinity on glyphosate degradation in Taiwan’s native seawater. Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- Since the abstract is a separate part from the main text, abbreviations should be redone in the text.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- The materials are missing in the materials and methods. There should be a subsection descripting sample collection.
Response: Done. We have revised the section 2.1 to incorporate materials (line 111).
- Tables and Figures should be self-explainable. Thus, notes should be made below them.
Response: Done. We have revised our Tables accordingly.
- The quality of figures should be improved.
Response: Done. We have improved our quality of figures.
- The conclusion should emphasize the findings rather than summarize the whole study like an abstract. Thus, the current conclusions should be rewritten.
Response: We have revised Conclusion section accordingly (line 349-354). Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn reviewing the submitted paper, I have found no major objections and think that the paper is of sufficient quality to be published in the journal Water. However, there are some minor comments that should be discussed.
1. Line 88. The term „ionic chromatography“ should be replaced by the more common term „ion chromatography“.
2. Line 94. Use "previous" instead of "previously".
3. Lines 109-111. Why do you use the abbreviation MW for molar weight when the usual symbol for this quantity is M?
4. Line 126. The use of the word “with" is superfluous.
5. Please check the manuscript carefully and separate the values from the corresponding units with a space. For example, in lines 133, 161, 162, 163, etc.
6. Lines 132-134. Please check this sentence. It reads strangely.
7. In lines 148-150, the authors describe the elution gradient used. For the sake of clarity, I suggest adding a graphical representation of the gradient as supplementary material.
8. Line 167. I assume that "3.2e-5" is actually "3.2∙10-5". If so, please replace the current expression.
9. Line 167. „The interface heater (ihe) was set as ON.“ This sentence seems unnecessary.
10. Lines 173-174. „The testing glyphosate solution (Glyphosate isopropylamine, 41% SL) was purchased from SINON Corporation, Taiwan.“ This sentence belongs in section 2.1 Chemicals.
11. Line 174: The use of the word “water" is superfluous.
12. Line 183. I think the authors were not clear when they used the term "six water solvents". Please be clearer.
13. Line 187. Why do the authors use the term Cf when f refers to the sampling time? It would be more logical and less confusing if they used the abbreviation Ct.
14. Line 189. Information about the software producer is missing. Please add it.
15. I noticed that the authors use USA and U.S.A. in combination. The spelling of the name of this country should be standardized.
16. Line 226. "The linear range were 2, 10, 50, 200, 1000, 3000 ng/mL, and 0.5, 2, 10, 50, 200, 1000 ng/mL..." First, this sentence might confuse the reader. These are not the linear ranges, but the analyte concentrations used for calibration, which in this case are within the linearity range of the method. Please correct this. Secondly, it would be desirable if the authors would explain in the manuscript why they chose these concentration values. The chosen concentration values are not uniformly distributed, which may give a false impression of linearity.
17. Most of the figures in the manuscript are blurred and illegible. The authors need to provide higher resolution images. By this I do not just mean increasing the dpi value of the figures on a computer, but providing figures with clearly visible details.
18. The manuscript contains many abbreviations, which leads to confusion and makes it difficult to follow the text. I therefore suggest that unnecessary abbreviations be removed from the text. For example, I see no point in introducing abbreviations for terms that are only mentioned two or three times in the manuscript.
19. Lines 253-254. „…established by European Food Safety Authority in 2018.“ Please add related reference.
20. It is common to write variables in italics. For example, P (lines 284, 293, 294, etc.) and n (lines 255, 282, Table 3, etc.) are variables and should be italicized.
21. Use lower case for “The" in line 263 and for “Accuracy” in line 271.
22. Lines 295-297. It seems to me that this sentence should not have a reference. Please check this.
23. Figure 3 shows a bar chart in which the ranges are listed together with the GRR values. In some situations, these ranges contain negative values, which may be mathematically valid but does not make logical sense as the removal rate cannot be negative. It would be desirable to comment on this in the manuscript.
24. The Conclusion section is the worst written part of the manuscript. The Conclusion section is not obligatory. However, if the authors choose to include it in the manuscript, they should put more effort into writing it well. In the largest part of the Conclusion section, the authors present the circumstances that led to the development of a new method for glyphosate analysis (lines 345-351), which should not actually be in the Conclusion. Unfortunately, if this text were removed from the Conclusion section, the Conclusion section would only contain one sentence stating that the present study provided a reliable method for the sensitive determination of glyphosate in a high salinity environment.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2:
- Line 88. The term „ionic chromatography“ should be replaced by the more common term „ion chromatography“.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 93).
- Line 94. Use "previous" instead of "previously".
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 99).
- Lines 109-111. Why do you use the abbreviation MW for molar weight when the usual symbol for this quantity is M?
Response: We use the common abbreviation MW for molar weight.
- Line 126. The use of the word “with" is superfluous.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Please check the manuscript carefully and separate the values from the corresponding units with a space. For example, in lines 133, 161, 162, 163, etc.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Lines 132-134. Please check this sentence. It reads strangely.
Response: We have revised this sentence (line 137-139).
- In lines 148-150, the authors describe the elution gradient used. For the sake of clarity, I suggest adding a graphical representation of the gradient as supplementary material.
Response: Done. We have added a Table S1. Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- Line 167. I assume that "3.2e-5" is actually "3.2∙10-5". If so, please replace the current expression.
Response: Yes. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 171).
- Line 167. „The interface heater (ihe) was set as ON.“ This sentence seems unnecessary.
Response: Done. We have deleted this sentence.
- Lines 173-174. „The testing glyphosate solution (Glyphosate isopropylamine, 41% SL) was purchased from SINON Corporation, Taiwan.“ This sentence belongs in section 2.1 Chemicals.
Response: Done. We have moved this sentence to section 2.1 (line 126-127).
- Line 174: The use of the word “water" is superfluous.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Line 183. I think the authors were not clear when they used the term "six water solvents". Please be clearer.
Response: We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 184).
- Line 187. Why do the authors use the term Cf when f refers to the sampling time? It would be more logical and less confusing if they used the abbreviation Ct.
Response: We have revised our manuscript to provide a clearer description of Cf (line 190).
- Line 189. Information about the software producer is missing. Please add it.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 192).
- I noticed that the authors use USA and U.S.A. in combination. The spelling of the name of this country should be standardized.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Line 226. "The linear range were 2, 10, 50, 200, 1000, 3000 ng/mL, and 0.5, 2, 10, 50, 200, 1000 ng/mL..." First, this sentence might confuse the reader. These are not the linear ranges, but the analyte concentrations used for calibration, which in this case are within the linearity range of the method. Please correct this. Secondly, it would be desirable if the authors would explain in the manuscript why they chose these concentration values. The chosen concentration values are not uniformly distributed, which may give a false impression of linearity.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 229-230).
- Most of the figures in the manuscript are blurred and illegible. The authors need to provide higher resolution images. By this I do not just mean increasing the dpi value of the figures on a computer, but providing figures with clearly visible details.
Response: Done. We have improved the Tables and Figures.
- The manuscript contains many abbreviations, which leads to confusion and makes it difficult to follow the text. I therefore suggest that unnecessary abbreviations be removed from the text. For example, I see no point in introducing abbreviations for terms that are only mentioned two or three times in the manuscript.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Lines 253-254. „…established by European Food Safety Authority in 2018.“ Please add related reference.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 258, 419-420).
- It is common to write variables in italics. For example, P (lines 284, 293, 294, etc.) and n (lines 255, 282, Table 3, etc.) are variables and should be italicized.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly.
- Use lower case for “The" in line 263 and for “Accuracy” in line 271.
Response: Done. We have revised our manuscript accordingly (line 267).
- Lines 295-297. It seems to me that this sentence should not have a reference. Please check this.
Response: We have moved the citation to appropriate location (line 299).
- Figure 3 shows a bar chart in which the ranges are listed together with the GRR values. In some situations, these ranges contain negative values, which may be mathematically valid but does not make logical sense as the removal rate cannot be negative. It would be desirable to comment on this in the manuscript.
Response: All the GRR values are positive, We have modified the scale of Y axis for Figure 3. Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
- The Conclusion section is the worst written part of the manuscript. The Conclusion section is not obligatory. However, if the authors choose to include it in the manuscript, they should put more effort into writing it well. In the largest part of the Conclusion section, the authors present the circumstances that led to the development of a new method for glyphosate analysis (lines 345-351), which should not actually be in the Conclusion. Unfortunately, if this text were removed from the Conclusion section, the Conclusion section would only contain one sentence stating that the present study provided a reliable method for the sensitive determination of glyphosate in a high salinity environment.
Response: We have revised Conclusion section accordingly (line 349-354). Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript has been very much improved after revisions. However, there are some minor things to address:
-Abstract should mention the aspect of a new method because the highlight result in abstract focus on nonsterilized and sterilized or saline and non-saline conditions. Time saving and reliable method should be added in abstract
-The first paragraph cited too much information from document number 1
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1:
- Abstract should mention the aspect of a new method because the highlight result in abstract focus on nonsterilized and sterilized or saline and non-saline conditions. Time saving and reliable method should be added in abstract The first paragraph cited too much information from document number 1.
Response: We have revised the first paragraph in Abstract (marked green). Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
