Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Assessing contamination in transitional waters using Geographic Information Systems: A review" is well-written, well-structured, and clear; it qualifies the title and scope of the study. However, I believe that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication. I have several comments and suggestions for improvement.

The following are some major weaknesses that need to be addressed:

*         It is better to explain the novelty of the manuscript in the Abstract and Introduction sections.

*         The subsection "3.2. General description of data collection" fits much better in the "Materials and Methods" section.

*         The subsection "3.3.4. Indices » is poorly cited. There are often statements with no reference.

*        The quality of Figure 12 is too weak.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable review of our manuscript. Your observations and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. In the following sections, we address your comments point by point. We have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript to incorporate your suggestions and clarify any points of confusion

Reviewer 1

Point 1: The paper entitled "Assessing contamination in transitional waters using Geographic Information Systems: A review" is well-written, well-structured, and clear; it qualifies the title and scope of the study. However, I believe that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication. I have several comments and suggestions for improvement.

The following are some major weaknesses that need to be addressed:

 

Response 1: Thank you once again for your constructive criticism and for helping us enhance the overall quality of our research.

 

Point 2: It is better to explain the novelty of the manuscript in the Abstract and Introduction sections.

 

Response 2: The necessary changes were made to highlight the novelty of the review, and these can be found in lines 24 to 27 in the abstract and lines 94 to 96 in the introduction.

 

Point 3: The subsection "3.2. General description of data collection" fits much better in the "Materials and Methods" section.

 

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer that this subsection could also fit in the Materials and Methods section. However, since it describes results and analysis from the collected papers, we prefer to keep it as a separate subsection and rename it to '3.2 General Description of Results”.

 

Point 4: The subsection "3.3.4. Indices » is poorly cited. There are often statements with no reference.

 

Response 4: We have added three new references for a description of indices applications for environmental pollution in lines 317 and 318:

• Bellan, G. Pollution Indices. In Encyclopedia of Ecology; Elsevier, 2008; pp. 2861–2868.
• Prasad Ahirvar, B.; Das, P.; Srivastava, V.; Kumar, M. Perspectives of Heavy Metal Pollution Indices for Soil, Sediment, and Water Pollution Evaluation: An Insight. Total Environment Research Themes 2023, 6, doi:10.1016/j.totert.2023.100039.
• Kumar, D.; Khan, E.A. Remediation and Detection Techniques for Heavy Metals in the Environment. In Heavy Metals in the Environment: Impact, Assessment, and Remediation; Elsevier, 2020; pp. 205–222 ISBN 9780128216569.

 

Point 5: The quality of Figure 12 is too weak.

 

Response 5: We have prepared and placed a new figure with improved resolution.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Transitional water bodies are closely related to ecological and economic ecosystems, and their impact on providing food, protecting coastal environments, and regulating nutrition cannot be ignored. This article analyzes the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in monitoring and predicting the distribution of pollutants in transitional water bodies, which helps to identify key points of pollution and promote the restoration capacity of ecosystems. I think the paper is of good quality and can be accepted after a minor revision. The suggest are listed as follows:

1.L30-33:Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in Introduction.

2.L181:The figures in your paper are a bit blurry. Please consider replacing them with clearer ones.

3.L624:Add a separator for the numbers over 1,000. Check all numbers including those in tables/figures.

4.L719:Does the TN/P ratio represent the ratio of total nitrogen to phosphorus or the ratio of total nitrogen to total phosphorus? Suggest verification.

5.L809:There is an extra point written here, please check the rest of the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable review of our manuscript. Your observations and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. In the following sections, we address your comments point by point. We have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript to incorporate your suggestions and clarify any points of confusion

 

Reviewer 2

Point 1: Transitional water bodies are closely related to ecological and economic ecosystems, and their impact on providing food, protecting coastal environments, and regulating nutrition cannot be ignored. This article analyzes the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in monitoring and predicting the distribution of pollutants in transitional water bodies, which helps to identify key points of pollution and promote the restoration capacity of ecosystems. I think the paper is of good quality and can be accepted after a minor revision. The suggestions are listed as follows:

 

Response 1: Again, thanks for your positive feedback on our manuscript.

 

Point 2: L30-33: Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in the Introduction.

 

Response 2: Supplementary bibliography has been added to lines 35 and 36:

• Facca, C. Ecological Status Assessment of Transitional Waters. Water (Switzerland) 2020, 12, 1–5, doi:10.3390/w12113159.
• Tagliapietra, D.; Sigovini, M.; Ghirardini, A.V. A Review of Terms and Definitions to Categorise Estuaries, Lagoons and Associated Environments. Mar Freshw Res 2009, 60, 497–509, doi:10.1071/MF08088.
• O’Brien, P.A.J.; Asteman, I.P.; Bouchet, V.M.P. Benthic Foraminiferal Indices and Environmental Quality Assessment of Transitional Waters: A Review of Current Challenges and Future Research Perspectives. Water (Switzerland) 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/w13141898.

 

Point 3: L181:The figures in your paper are a bit blurry. Please consider replacing them with clearer ones.

 

Response 3: We have prepared and placed a new figure with improved resolution.

 

Point 4: L624:Add a separator for the numbers over 1,000. Check all numbers including those in tables/figures.

 

Response 4: We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected all numerical values, including those within tables and figures.

 

Point 5: L719: Does the TN/P ratio represent the ratio of total nitrogen to phosphorus or the ratio of total nitrogen to total phosphorus? Suggest verification.

 

Response 5: Thanks for your comment; in the context of the article, the expression TN/P refers to the ratio of total nitrogen and orthophosphate measured in mg/L. We have made the necessary corrections, which can be found in lines 727 and 728.

 

Point 6: L809:There is an extra point written here, please check the rest of the text.

Response 6: The extra point has been identified and removed. The remaining text has been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and completeness.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is a broad review of methods and indicators used to assess the level of pollution in transitional waters. The most frequently used chemical and physicochemical parameters in the assessment of pollution are indicated. GIS techniques used in the analysis of spatial variability of pollutants, in particular interplation techniques, are discussed in detail. The possibility of using remote sensing techniques was also taken into account.
The article is written in accessible language. The materials contained therein can be used by other authors when planning research, facilitating comparison of the results obtained with the results of research conducted so far. They can be used not only in studies of transitional water pollution, but also in analyzes of water pollution in other areas.
For better readability of the article, I suggest moving Table 1 to the supplements.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable review of our manuscript. Your observations and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. In the following sections, we address your comments point by point. We have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript to incorporate your suggestions and clarify any points of confusion

Response 1: Thanks for your kind comment.

 

Point 2: For better readability of the article, I suggest moving Table 1 to the supplements.

Response 2: Thanks for your kind suggestion. We recognize that a table of such length may interfere with the fluent reading of the manuscript; however, we believe it is important to include it in the main body to quickly read and analyze the information. Because of that, and not having received the same observation from the other 3 reviewers, we have decided to keep it in its original position, we hope for your understanding.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In Abstract, pag. 1, rows 17-21: the sentences “This study analyses the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for monitoring and predicting contaminant distribution in TW. Cartography, interpolation, complex spatial methods, and remote sensing were applied to assess contamination….”, have to be modified; the paper analysis, to be more precise and closer to the content of the work, assessing contamination in transitional waters using geospatial technologies that integrate remote sensing, GPS, mapping, and surveying data to generate valuable geographic information. In this respect even the title would be more appropriate, by replacing “Geographic Information Systems” by “geospatial technologies”.

So, I suggest to modify the title of the paper accordingly : “Assessing contamination in transitional waters using geospatial technologies: A review”.

In chp. 3. Results, subchp. 3.2. General description of data collection, pag. 4, rows 172-174: the sentence “Fifty-five papers reported applying four types of GIS: cartography, interpolation methods, complex spatial methods, and remote sensing for studying several polluted tidal waters.” is unclear; the cartography and remote sensing are not types of GIS, but very clear define domains, that use geospatial technologies.

In chp. 3. Results, Subchp. 3.3.4. Indices, pag. 15, rows 338 – 339: The sentence “When combined with GIS, these indices and parameters may offer a more comprehensive insight into water quality and pollution levels.” In unclear; please explain what means the combination of indices with GIS.

 

In chp. 3. Subchp. 3.4.3 Complex spatial models, pag. 21: please define the term “complex spatial models”.

 

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable review of our manuscript. Your observations and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. In the following sections, we address your comments point by point. We have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript to incorporate your suggestions and clarify any points of confusion

 

Reviewer 4

Point 1: In Abstract, pag. 1, rows 17-21: the sentences “This study analyses the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for monitoring and predicting contaminant distribution in TW. Cartography, interpolation, complex spatial methods, and remote sensing were applied to assess contamination….”, have to be modified; the paper analysis, to be more precise and closer to the content of the work, assessing contamination in transitional waters using geospatial technologies that integrate remote sensing, GPS, mapping, and surveying data to generate valuable geographic information. In this respect even the title would be more appropriate, by replacing “Geographic Information Systems” by “geospatial technologies”.

So, I suggest to modify the title of the paper accordingly : “Assessing contamination in transitional waters using geospatial technologies: A review”.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, modifying the concepts to achieve a more precise alignment is appropriate. Hence, the title has been revised to “Assessing contamination in transitional waters using geospatial technologies: A review” (lines 2-3). Additionally, adjustments have been made in the abstract (lines 18, 23) and introduction (lines 74-75, 90-91) to reflect these changes. Also, we added the reference in line 76:

• Reddy, G.P.O. Geospatial Technologies in Land Resources Mapping, Monitoring, and Management: An Overview. In Geospatial Technologies in Land Resources Mapping, Monitoring and Management; Reddy, G.P.O., Singh, S.K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Vol. 21, pp. 1–18.

 

Point 2: In chp. 3. Results, subchp. 3.2. General description of data collection, pag. 4, rows 172-174: the sentence “Fifty-five papers reported applying four types of GIS: cartography, interpolation methods, complex spatial methods, and remote sensing for studying several polluted tidal waters.” is unclear; the cartography and remote sensing are not types of GIS, but very clear define domains, that use geospatial technologies.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your observation, we have made the pertinent modifications throughout the text, which you can find in the following lines: 77, 178, 181, 191, 193, 206, 212, 263, 287, 296, 311, 794, 816, 818, 833, 834 and 836. You can also find the appropriate references on line 355:

Geospatial Technologies in Environmental Management; Hoalst-Pullen, N., Patterson, M.W., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2010; ISBN 978-90-481-9524-4.

103. Baker, T.R.; Battersby, S.; Bednarz, S.W.; Bodzin, A.M.; Kolvoord, B.; Moore, S.; Sinton, D.; Uttal, D. A Research Agenda for Geospatial Technologies and Learning. Journal of Geography 2015, 114, 118–130, doi:10.1080/00221341.2014.950684

 

Point 3: In chp. 3. Results, Subchp. 3.3.4. Indices, pag. 15, rows 338 – 339: The sentence “When combined with GIS, these indices and parameters may offer a more comprehensive insight into water quality and pollution levels.” In unclear; please explain what means the combination of indices with GIS.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment; we have modified the statement to clarify the idea: "When these indices and parameters are integrated with GTS, it may offer a more comprehensive insight into water quality and pollution levels." This modification can be found in lines 345 and 346.

 

Point 4: In chp. 3. Subchp. 3.4.3 Complex spatial models, pag. 21: please define the term “complex spatial models”.

Response 4: Definitions for all described techniques are already in Table 2. Complex spatial models were defined as: “Mathematical or computational representations that attempt to capture and explain spatial relationships and patterns in geographic datasets using geostatistics”

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is significantly improved compared to its previous version. The authors have incorporated all comments and suggestions in the revised manuscript, and I have no further suggestions.

 

With kind regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account my observations and suggestions. The revised manuscript is much improved, clearer and more precise in the use of specific terms. I agree to be published in this revised form.