Atmospheric Deposition around the Industrial Areas of Milazzo and Priolo Gargallo (Sicily–Italy)—Part B: Trace Elements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion this paper is an interesting study and authors have analyzed the chemical concentrations of a vast number of hitherto little-studied trace elements in atmospheric depositions and to calculate the relative deposition rates at two industrial polluted areas of Sicily, Milazzo and Priolo Gargallo, which were classified by the Italian Ministry of the Environment as areas at high risk of environmental crisis (hereafter AERCA – Area ad Elevato Rischio di Crisi Ambientale).

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Its topic is very interesting. However, the current version of the paper suffers from a number of weaknesses related to the empirical strategy used. I have the following comments/questions for the authors:

Abstract

·         The abstract could be more specific. I suggest the authors should organize the abstract as well as main text in four sections, namely: scope, objectives, methods, results, conclusions. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

·         Add important results in the abstract section.

·         The authors ought to re-write the abstract so that it briefly presents the problem at hand, objectives of the study, methods used to achieve the objectives in logical order. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

Introduction

·         In introduction chapter please focus on problem generally, on the basis of examples in the whole World, not your study area.

Material and Methods (Please add this title)

Study area

·         Describe all the features of the study area in brief including climate, topography…etc.  ?

Sampling and analytical methods

·         Sampling locations were selected carefully within the Milazzo AERCA and Priolo Gargallo AERCA to have a good representation of the spatial variability of quality indicators. What criteria where analyzed to select this locations?

·         What criteria where analyzed to select this locations?

·         Please provide detailed detection methods and quality control results?

·         Please support your methods by providing appropriate references or give the guidelines used and equations.

·         How did you do quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) on the obtained data to validate the conclusions?

Results and Discussion

·         Please transfer Table 2 under Results and Discussion section.

·         You should think how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability related challenges?

·         Write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

·         What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

Conclusion

·         Concise the text in conclusion and add future work in order to recommend your work. Shorten the length of each and every paragraph by adding only relevant and major findings in your study. 

Please respond to all of those comments in the revised manuscript by pointing out precisely and concisely on which page and in which line you have incorporated your response one by one.

Author Response

Abstract

- The abstract could be more specific. I suggest the authors should organize the abstract as well as main text in four sections, namely: scope, objectives, methods, results, conclusions. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study. Add important results in the abstract section. The authors ought to re-write the abstract so that it briefly presents the problem at hand, objectives of the study, methods used to achieve the objectives in logical order. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

R: Abstract has been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer (lines 20-30; 32,33; 37-43 in the track_changes version).

Introduction

- In introduction chapter please focus on problem generally, on the basis of examples in the whole World, not your study area.

R: Thanks for the suggestion but we partially agree with this comment. From our point of view, the introduction is already focused on generally problems: the main processes governing the chemical composition of rainfall; the anthropogenic sources of the most studied trace elements; the different mechanisms of atmospheric deposition. Some references to Europe and the Mediterranean are already presented, and only the last two paragraphs concern the study area investigated. Furthermore, an accurate comparison with different study areas (53 sites from 20 different countries) is presented and discussed in section 4.5. Nevertheless, a short paragraph on some similar anthropised areas was added as suggested by the reviewer (lines 57-68 in the track_changes version). For this reason, a revision of the references of the entire paper was necessary.

Material and Methods (Please add this title)

R: The title was changed as suggested by the reviewer.

Study area

- Describe all the features of the study area in brief including climate, topography…etc.  ?

R: A detailed description of the characteristics of the study areas and the climate of the region was reported in the first part (Part A) of this work (see Brugnone et al., 2023a) (lines 204,205 Ttack_changes version): “For more details of the studied areas and climatic settings, refer to the companion paper by Brugnone et al., 2023a [45] and [46-50].” For this reason, it was decided not to include the description again in this paper.

Sampling and analytical methods

- Sampling locations were selected carefully within the Milazzo AERCA and Priolo Gargallo AERCA to have a good representation of the spatial variability of quality indicators. What criteria where analyzed to select this locations? What criteria where analyzed to select this locations?

R: A detailed description of the criteria used in the selection of monitoring sites has been added as requested (lines 191-201 in the track_changes version).

- Please provide detailed detection methods and quality control results? Please support your methods by providing appropriate references or give the guidelines used and equations. How did you do quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) on the obtained data to validate the conclusions?

R: A detailed description of the quality control and quality assurance of the analytical determinations has been added (lines 258-268 in the track_changes version).

Results and Discussion

- Please transfer Table 2 under Results and Discussion section.

R: Table 2 has been moved to Results and Discussion section, paragraph “4.4 Bulk deposition fluxes of trace elements” as requested.

- You should think how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability related challenges?

R: Sorry, but we did not understand this question.

- Write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives. What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

R: We have added a few sentences as suggested by the reviewer, but we feel that the article is already very long and inserting an additional paragraph is excessive. On the other hand, we have made it clear that the purpose of the paper was to provide an initial dataset, as yet non-existent, for all future research, both in the study area and in similar contexts. We also highlighted an important methodological issue that may be of help to researchers working in this field. However, as suggested by the reviewer, a consideration regarding the protection of the environment and human health have been added to the conclusions (lines 680-681 in the track_changes version).

Conclusion

- Concise the text in conclusion and add future work in order to recommend your work. Shorten the length of each and every paragraph by adding only relevant and major findings in your study.

R: We have reduced the conclusions as much as possible as suggested by the reviewer and some considerations for future studies have been added (lines 682-684 in the track_changes version).

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the results of the analysis of the chemical concentrations of a vast number of hitherto little-studied trace elements in atmospheric depositions of polluted industrial areas of Italy. Please, consider the remarks made during the revision of the document. I recommend publishing after a minor revision (view the document attached).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:

Indicate on the map, Figure 1 (line 158).

R: A detailed map showing all monitoring sites is given in Part A of this study (see Brugnone et al., 2023a).

Comment 2:

Indicate on the map, Figure 1 (line 158).

R: A detailed map showing all monitoring sites is given in Part A of this study (see Brugnone et al., 2023a).

Comment 3:

The map coordinates are not correct (line 167).

R: Thank you very much for this observation, we have corrected the coordinates.

Comment 4:

Indicate on the map, Figure 1 (line 174).

R: A detailed map showing all monitoring sites is given in Part A of this study (see Brugnone et al., 2023a).

Comment 5:

Show graphic evidence of the sampling (line 182).

R: Thank you for this observation. A figure with some samples of sampling sites has been added (Fig. 2).

Comment 6:

Specify in all cases, what is the correlation coefficient between the two variables.

What type of coefficient did they use: Pearson and Spearman? (line 286).

R: We apologize, they are not correlation graphs. The caption has been changed appropriately pointing out that this are binary graphs comparing selected trace elements concentrations (μg L^-1) in the filtered and the unfiltered (*) aliquots.

Comment 7:

What type of coefficient did they use: Pearson and Spearman? (line 340).

R: We have used the Pearson coefficient of correlation. We decided to modify the text, from lines 407 to 418, and from lines 428 to 436 (track_change version), in order to better explain this and to correct a few values.

Comment 8:

Change R2 with R² (line 355).

R: Fixed, thank you.

Comment 9:

Remove point before round parenthesis (line 364).

R: Fixed, thank you.

Comment 10:

Remove point before round parenthesis (line 409).

R: Fixed, thank you.

Comment 11:

Remove point before round parenthesis (line 427).

R: Fixed, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion this paper is an interesting study and authors have analyzed the chemical concentrations of a vast number of hitherto little-studied trace elements in atmospheric depositions and to calculate the relative deposition rates at two industrial polluted areas of Sicily, Milazzo and Priolo Gargallo, which were classified by the Italian Ministry of the Environment as areas at high risk of environmental crisis (hereafter AERCA – Area ad Elevato Rischio di Crisi Ambientale).

The article is written correctly, includes a discussion of the research findings, and a good review of the literature. The results are presented in a clearly structured manner. The paper has a logical structure and clearly describes the methodology. The manuscript has been significantly improved and can now be accepted in current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comment.
The revised version according to the journal editor's instructions is attached to this reply.
Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx