Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The pollution of coastal waters by petroleum activities is a serious challenge in many countries. This is also the case of Egypt where petroleum exploration grows in the Gulf of Suez (I have participated in some assessments of the hydrocarbon resources of this area). So, the reviewed manuscript is of outstanding urgency. It is based on really good study and bears a lot of interesting and novel data and interpretations. I believe this will become a good paper. However, some improvements (particularly, additions and re-organizations) are necessary before ir can be recommended for acceptance.

• Introduction and Discussion: why not to consider the dangers of heavy metal pollution to tourism development? At least, two famous resorts are located near the mouth of the Gulf of Suez. You can look at these works and cite them:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687428513000836

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/6/242/xml

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X20306792

• Subsection 2.2: you sampled in 2014. Ok, but what has changed since that time? Please, state briefly whether the "old" samples reflect the current situation.
• 1: can you show there sites/areas of petroleum activity?
• Section 3: Results MUST be separated from Discussion. These should be different sections. This is standard requirement in international journals to separate findings (Results) from interpretations (Discussion).
• Subsection 3.1 to be named 'Sediment Properties'.
• Table 3: what is the difference between gravel and gravelly sediment?
• Figure 4 and 5: please, delete the word 'Legend' on them and show sites/areas of petroleum activities.
• Discussion: please, a) generalize your results, b) demonstrate that pollution is linked to petroleum activities, c) consider the role of the other possible factors of pollution (e.g., what about maritime traffic?), d) compare your results to the findings in other places (I see good information in your Table 4), e) discuss the environmental effects of pollution (e.g., degradation of ecosystems), f) consider what is currently done to minimize pollution (if any), and g) offer practical implications of your findings.
• Conclusions: the readers would prefer to see a numbered list of 3-5 main findings (from Results and Discussion) and the stated perspectives for further research.
• The language needs some polishing.

Author Response

19 April 2021

Prof. Dr. Tony Clare 

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,

Dear Prof. Clare,

Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt’. Manuscript ID: jmse-1188847, authored by Magda M. Abou El-Safa, Mohamed Gad, Ebrahem M. Eid, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Mohammed H. Almarshadi, Abdullah S. Alshammari, Farahat S. Moghanm, and Ali H. Saleh.

On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers on our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. The deleted sentence marked by “strikethrough line and blue color”. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.

Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• The pollution of coastal waters by petroleum activities is a serious challenge in many countries. This is also the case of Egypt where petroleum exploration grows in the Gulf of Suez (I have participated in some assessments of the hydrocarbon resources of this area). So, the reviewed manuscript is of outstanding urgency. It is based on really good study and bears a lot of interesting and novel data and interpretations. I believe this will become a good paper. However, some improvements (particularly, additions and re-organizations) are necessary before it can be recommended for acceptance.

Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for your constructive comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to your’ comments. We add some sentences and rearrangement to abstract, introduction, materials and method and separate the results from discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Introduction and Discussion: why not to consider the dangers of heavy metal pollution to tourism development? At least, two famous resorts are located near the mouth of the Gulf of Suez.

- Response: We agree with your suggestion to clear the effect of heavy metals on the tourism activities sustainability in Suez Gulf. Some sentences (Page 2: Lines 83-88) were added.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Subsection 2.2: you sampled in 2014. Ok, but what has changed since that time? Please, state briefly whether the "old" samples reflect the current situation.

• Response: Thank you for your comment. The distribution of metals in sediments could be used to study anthropogenic impacts on aquatic ecosystems and assess the risks posed by waste discharges. The concentration of metals in sediments is not an isolated factor but interacts with surrounding environmental factors. Investigation on the relations between heavy metals and various environmental factors is beneficial to comprehensively evaluate the impacts of heavy metals on the ecosystem and grasp the pollution characteristics of local environment. The anthropogenic activities are occurred from long time and still occurred. The resulting change in sediments resulted from human activities that were and are still present and their environmental impact is still present, so by studying these sediments, we can draw a picture of the environmental situation of the Gulf. Anyway, some sentences (Page 2: Lines 64-67) were stated briefly whether the "old" samples reflect the current situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

• 1: can you show there sites/areas of petroleum activity?

Response: Thanks, the Suze Gulf has more than 1000 exploration wells, resulting in 240 oil discoveries in more than 80 oil fields. So, North Amer, Amer, Bakr, Ras Gharib, July Water Floued, Ras Shokeir and El-Marageen are oil fields. Some sentences (Page 2: Lines 90-91) and (Page 3: Lines 125-126) were added to the text.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Section 3: Results MUST be separated from Discussion. These should be different sections. This is standard requirement in international journals to separate findings (Results) from interpretations (Discussion).

Response: Thanks for your kind guidance, we separate results from discussion (pages 7-26).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

• Subsection 3.1 to be named 'Sediment Properties'.

Response: Many thanks, this subsection was changed according to your guidance mentioned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Table 3: what is the difference between gravel and gravelly sediment?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Gravel it means the sediment samples contain gravel fraction percentage more than 50%. While gravelly sediment, means the samples contains gravel with less than 50%.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Figure 4 and 5: please, delete the word 'Legend' on them and show sites/areas of petroleum activities.

Response: thanks, the word Legend deleted. For the sites of petroleum activities, as mentioned before the samples collected from oil fields (North Amer, Amer, Bakr, Ras Gharib, July Water Floued, Ras Shokeir and El-Marageen are oil fields).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Discussion: please, a) generalize your results, b) demonstrate that pollution is linked to petroleum activities, c) consider the role of the other possible factors of pollution (e.g., what about maritime traffic?), d) compare your results to the findings in other places (I see good information in your Table 4), e) discuss the environmental effects of pollution (e.g., degradation of ecosystems), f) consider what is currently done to minimize pollution (if any), and g) offer practical implications of your findings.

Response: Thank you for grateful notes. We attempt to arrange the discussion according to your fruitful guidance. Please see pages 24-26.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Conclusions: the readers would prefer to see a numbered list of 3-5 main findings (from Results and Discussion) and the stated perspectives for further research.

Response: Thank you for grateful notes. We arranged the conclusion according to your suggestion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the explanation given above adequately addresses all reviewers’ comments. I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Yours

Ebrahem M. Eid

[Kafrelsheikh University]

[Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt]

[Phone number: 002010 22648840]

[Email address: [email protected]]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript should be classified as Case report. It does not contain sufficient novelty to be accepted as Article. However, it provides a detailed list of sampling from Suez Gulf, Egypt, which can be of interest for researchers.

Abstract: It should be more focused. Abstract should explain what was done and general comments about main findings and not to go in deep details. Much of the material from this abstract can be of interest for discussion section.

The manuscript is well structured. English is correct.

Eq.(2): It is not usual to use logarithmic function of base 2. Please explain if it is commonly accepted in this case.

Eq.(3) and Eq.(4): x can be misinterpreted with matrix multiplication. Please explain the meaning.

Conclusion is sufficient.

Reference list is updated and contains citation of relevant papers.

Author Response

19 April 2021

Prof. Dr. Tony Clare 

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,

Dear Prof. Clare,

Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt’. Manuscript ID: jmse-1188847, authored by Magda M. Abou El-Safa, Mohamed Gad, Ebrahem M. Eid, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Mohammed H. Almarshadi, Abdullah S. Alshammari, Farahat S. Moghanm, and Ali H. Saleh.

On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers on our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. The deleted sentence marked by “strikethrough line and blue color”. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.

Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Abstract: It should be more focused. Abstract should explain what was done and general comments about main findings and not to go in deep details. Much of the material from this abstract can be of interest for discussion section.

Response: Please accept our appreciation for your fruitful audit and we agree with your suggestion to rearrange the abstract. Pease see Page 1: Lines 24-46.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• The manuscript is well structured. English is correct.

Response: Thanks a lot for your positive feedback.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• (2): It is not usual to use logarithmic function of base 2. Please explain if it is commonly accepted in this case.

Response: Thank you for grateful note. It was explained in the text because it accepted in our case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• (3) and Eq. (4): x can be misinterpreted with matrix multiplication. Please explain the meaning.

Response: Thanks a lot, x is times sign, which mean multiplication.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Conclusion is sufficient data.

Response: Thank you for this positive comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Reference list is updated and contains citation of relevant papers.

Response: Thank you once again for this positive comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the explanation given above adequately addresses all reviewers’ comments. I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Yours

Ebrahem M. Eid

[Kafrelsheikh University]

[Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt]

[Phone number: 002010 22648840]

[Email address: [email protected]]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This work is focused on the risk of heavy metal contamination in different geographical areas where there are maritime activities related to oil applications.
However, the authors also report numerous pH and salinity measurements on the coasts and away from the coasts and at different depths, and perhaps it would be useful to mention this in the abstract and introductory part as well, because it gives further credit to the work.
The manuscript is well written and organized and supported by a rich experimental activity carried out with a good methodology, perhaps it is lacking in a previous study on the state of the art if it has ever been done. The authors may report some results from previous studies as a comparison with their results.
In any case, this work seems in line with the aims of the Journal and in my opinion it deserves to be published as long as it is revised in terms of English writing style, the addition of a part of literature and some comparison with the results obtained. in this paper, if possible.

Author Response

19 April 2021

Prof. Dr. Tony Clare 

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,

Dear Prof. Clare,

Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Activities in Surface Sediments, Suez Gulf, Egypt’. Manuscript ID: jmse-1188847, authored by Magda M. Abou El-Safa, Mohamed Gad, Ebrahem M. Eid, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Mohammed H. Almarshadi, Abdullah S. Alshammari, Farahat S. Moghanm, and Ali H. Saleh.

On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers on our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. The deleted sentence marked by “strikethrough line and blue color”. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.

Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Must be improved.

Response: Please accept our appreciation for your fruitful audit and we agree with your suggestion. Please see Page 2: Lines 73 -88.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• This work is focused on the risk of heavy metal contamination in different geographical areas where there are maritime activities related to oil applications. However, the authors also report numerous pH and salinity measurements on the coasts and away from the coasts and at different depths, and perhaps it would be useful to mention this in the abstract and introductory part as well, because it gives further credit to the work.

Response: Please accept our appreciation for your grateful notes. We mention that in the abstract, please see Page 1: Lines 29-30.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• The manuscript is well written and organized and supported by a rich experimental activity carried out with a good methodology, perhaps it is lacking in a previous study on the state of the art if it has ever been done. The authors may report some results from previous studies as a comparison with their results.

Response: Thank you very much for your fruitful and encourage opinion. The results of the present study were compared with previous related studies. Please see the discussion section.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• In any case, this work seems in line with the aims of the Journal and in my opinion, it deserves to be published as long as it is revised in terms of English writing style, the addition of a part of literature and some comparison with the results obtained. in this paper, if possible.

Response: Please accept our appreciation for your fruitful comments. The text was improved accordingly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the explanation given above adequately addresses all reviewers’ comments. I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Yours

Ebrahem M. Eid

[Kafrelsheikh University]

[Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt]

[Phone number: 002010 22648840]

[Email address: [email protected]]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good job! I like the revised version and, particularly, the newly-added Discussion.