Sediment quality assessment in an industrialized Greek coastal marine area (western Saronikos Gulf)

Filippi, Georgia; Dassenakis, Manos; Paraskevopoulou, Vasiliki; Lazogiannis, Konstantinos

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-163-2023

Articles | Volume 20, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-163-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Towards an understanding and assessment of human impact on...

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-163-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 1

Research article

|

12 Jan 2023

Research article |

| 12 Jan 2023

Sediment quality assessment in an industrialized Greek coastal marine area (western Saronikos Gulf)

Georgia Filippi, Manos Dassenakis, Vasiliki Paraskevopoulou, and Konstantinos Lazogiannis

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Jan 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Jun 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on bg-2022-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jul 2022

The proposed study is very interesting and constitutes important research contributing to the Saronikos state's monitoring.

From a scientific point of view, it is an integrated study covering all methodological aspects of analysis.

However, I believe that the paper needs structural improvements in the research presentation that will integrate the study in terms of continuity and coherence. Specific suggestions may be found within the revised document, however, the main comment is that the authors should add a Study Area Section and pay attention to the content of each Section.

A minor, yet important terminology issue is the use of fine-grained (silt and clay) material which is defined and used as muddy material.

Moreover, language control throughout the text is needed. Some indicative corrections have been made to the initial text, but it has to be checked out totally.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Georgia Filippi, 27 Jul 2022
  Dear sir/madam we would like to thank you for the chance you gave us for further discussion on the manuscript bg-2022-79. We appreciate your constructive feedback.
  We will make structural improvements in the research presentation that will integrate the study in terms of continuity and coherence.
  
  We will add a Study Area Section. Moreover we will pay attention to the content of each Section and make appropriate amendments.
  
  We will use the term muddy for the sediment fraction below <63μm.
  
  We will incorporate all your comments (both the general remarks in https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-RC1, 2022 and the specific comments/corrections in https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2022-79/bg-2022-79-RC1-supplement.pdf) to a revised manuscript, in order to improve the research presentation.
  
  We will improve the language throughout the text to the best of our abilities.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Aug 2022
    
    I would like to thank the authors for their initial positive approach and the willingness for a constructive revision of their paper.
    I remain in anticipation of the revised version.
    Kind regards,
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-RC2
    
    AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Georgia Filippi, 22 Aug 2022
    
    Dear Referee 1,
    we have already started to incorporate all your comments to a revised version of the manuscript.
    We are expecting the decision of the Associate Editor for further handling of our manuscript in order to submit the revised version.
    Kind regards
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC7
AC2: 'Comment on bg-2022-79-Anonymous Referee 2', Georgia Filippi, 28 Jul 2022

Regarding of the comments of Anonymous Referee 2:
Dear sir/madam we would like to thank you for the initial evaluation of our manuscript bg-2022-79.
Regarding the comment on the sampling design, it is customary practice to obtain 1 sediment core at each station. Moreover, a literature review showed that papers about metals in sediment cores, published in 2020-2021, three of which are shown below, state that 1 core was collected from each sampling station.
In our study, analytical precision was checked in 1 or 2 random layers of each core that were analyzed in duplicate. The reference sediment PACS used for quality control was analyzed multiples times, as well. These quality control measures were not fully mentioned in the Materials and Methods section for economy of space.
Therefore, we propose that the relevant information be added to the revised manuscript we plan to submit in any case since we have to incorporate suggestions from Referee 1.
Furthermore, we agree that a strict statistical comparison between sampling stations layer for layer cannot be performed since single measurements are mostly available. However, if Referee 2 deems it useful, there could be some attempt for statistical comparison between stations by using multiple layers from each core in order to better substantiate our discussion regarding some differences in metal content between stations in our study area. Elaborating on this, we could calculate the mean and standard deviation for example of the top 5 cm of each core and then apply statistical comparison using SPSS.
We are open to any other suggestions that would improve the quality of our manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110764
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105330
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122988

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on bg-2022-79', Evangelia Smeti, 08 Aug 2022

This paper could be an important contribution to our knowledge on sediment quality in West Saronikos Gulf, as well as on the comparison of pollution levels in time.
I believe that this work will merit from an important restructuring (as also suggested by referee 1), where the aims defined in the introduction are also clearly addressed in the other sections (methods, results, discussion).
I do recognize the concern on sampling design of referee 2- this standard procedure of 1 core sampling, renders a statistical approach nearly impossible. The use of the multiple layers of the 1 core as replicates of a site, as suggested, could be a way to overcome this. Also, grouping the sites as west-east saronikos groups and comparing them, could also give a more clear and robust picture in the third aim of comparison between the two gulf parts.
Overall, I believe that if the authors do all the hard work needed and suggested by the two referees, the final contribution would be of use to many scientists and stakeholders working in the Saronikos gulf area.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Georgia Filippi, 09 Aug 2022
  
  Dear mrs Evangelia ,
  we would like to thank you for your feedback.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC3
CC2:
'Comment on bg-2022-79', Natalia Kapetanaki, 08 Aug 2022

Very interesting and well-presented quality assessment of this coastal greek region.
It covers fully the main scopes of the study. Sediment core analyses propose a very good indication of pollution progress through time as well as the actual background of each heavy metal. Also the combined research of the specific area with neighbouring coastal areas depict the various differentiantions between these coastal environments despite their vicinity.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-CC2
- AC4: 'Reply on CC2', Georgia Filippi, 09 Aug 2022
  
  Dear mrs Natalia ,
  we would like to thank you for your feedback.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC4
CC3:
'Comment on bg-2022-79', Elli Pitta, 09 Aug 2022

This study holds a lot of interesting information regarding Saronikos Gulf, an area of great interest in research community.
The interpretation of the results has been made in a very consistent way supported by statistcal analysis.
I believe that following the recomendations of referee 1 this study will be a valuable asset in quality assessment of Saronikos Gulf.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-CC3
- AC5: 'Reply on CC3', Georgia Filippi, 09 Aug 2022
  
  Dear mrs Elli ,
  we would like to thank you for your feedback.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC5
EC1:
'Comment on bg-2022-79', Gert Van Hoey, 18 Aug 2022

The suggestions done in the current discussion in reply of the refereers are indeed needed to allow for a second review of the revised paper.
It is a relevant study, but in its current version still more a report version, so some more scientific body is needed. As a better structure, revision of the language (some more to the point, essence), a good comparison in the discussion with other similar studies, include clearly management needs in the discussion. but also important is to have some statistical comparison, as can probably be done between some sub-areas (samples of one area as replica's) to allow geographical comparison.
Looking forward to the update.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-EC1
- AC6: 'Reply on EC1', Georgia Filippi, 18 Aug 2022
  
  Dear mr Gert Van Hoey,
  We would like to thank you for your feedback and we are proceeding with the revision of the manuscript based on all comments received. We will
  submit the revised manuscript as soon as possible.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-79-AC6

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Aug 2022) by Gert Van Hoey

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (25 Aug 2022) by Marilaure Grégoire (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Georgia Filippi on behalf of the Authors (28 Sep 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Oct 2022) by Gert Van Hoey

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Nov 2022)

ED: Publish as is (17 Nov 2022) by Gert Van Hoey

ED: Publish as is (21 Nov 2022) by Marilaure Grégoire (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Georgia Filippi on behalf of the Authors (28 Nov 2022) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The pollution of the western Saronikos Gulf from heavy metals has been examined through the study of marine sediment cores. It is a deep gulf (maximum depth 440 m) near Athens affected by industrial and volcanic activity. Eight cores were received from various stations and depths and analysed for their heavy metal content and geochemical characteristics. The results were evaluated by using statistical methods, environmental indicators and comparisons with old data.