All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
This revised version is suitable for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Anastazia Banaszak, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No Comment
No comments
No comment
Minor issues
1. Long sentences could be broken down for readability, especially in the Introduction and Exposure of PAHs sections.
2. Some in-text citations (e.g., multiple “Liu et al., 2024” and “Wang et al., 2024b”) appear duplicated or inconsistent—crosscheck
3. Cross check Units and symbols such as ng/L, %, ×10⁻³, etc.
4. The phrase “possessd” (should be “possessed”) and a few typos such as “acorss,” “Notely,” “dominanted,” appear irregularly
Clarifications needed
1. The temporal window (2015–2025) includes projected publications; the authors should clarify whether 2025 data refer to “early online” works or accepted papers.
2. It would be helpful to include a summary table of all included studies (region, type of water body, sampling year, mean concentration, reference).
The authors have addressed all prior comments satisfactorily. The manuscript is scientifically sound and suitable for publication, requiring only minor editorial corrections.
Minor language issues: Some sentences are overly long and dense.
Example (Lines 227–240):
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised earlier
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised earlier
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised earlier
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised earlier
a) The manuscript is written in clear, professional English.
b) The introduction provides suitable background, context, and a clearly defined scope and motivation.
c) Relevant literature has been broadly cited, and previously missing references have been corrected.
d) The structure follows standard scientific conventions. Figures and tables are relevant, high-quality, and properly labelled.
e) Raw data and supplementary information are provided in line with data-sharing policies.
f) The review is timely, fits within the journal’s scope, and holds broad interdisciplinary interest.
a) The article’s content aligns well with the aims and scope of the journal.
b) Methodology is rigorous, applying a PRISMA-guided search strategy, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of multiple databases.
c) Study quality was assessed with a modified JBI checklist, and low-quality studies were excluded.
d) Analytical frameworks (DRs, PMF, TEQ and ILCR) enhance robustness.
e) The survey design is broad and unbiased, with potential sources of bias explicitly noted.
f) Methods are described in sufficient detail for reproducibility.
g) The review is logically structured and divided into coherent subsections.
a) Conclusions are clear, well-stated, and grounded in the results.
b) Claims are properly supported by evidence, with no unsupported causal links.
c) Statistical analyses (Kruskal–Wallis, post-hoc) are appropriately applied.
d) Limitations are recognized, including the focus on parent PAHs and limited long-term monitoring data.
e) Future research directions are highlighted, such as establishing regional thresholds, investigating PAH derivatives, conducting long-term monitoring, and applying multimedia models.
Final Recommendation
The authors have addressed all prior comments satisfactorily. The manuscript is scientifically sound and suitable for publication, requiring only minor editorial corrections (e.g., formatting and style consistency).
Issues Noted in the Manuscript (with track changes)
Minor language issues: Some sentences are overly long and dense.
Example (Lines 227–240):
“…this study integrated measured data from 69 research regions across China…deciphering the spatial differentiation characteristics of hotspots such as northern industrial belts and eastern coastal areas, exploring the impacts of seasonal dynamics on concentration fluctuations, and positioning Chinese pollution levels in the global context…”
→ this could be divided into shorter sentences for clarity.
Figure captions: Some remain descriptive but are not fully self-contained.
Example: “In order to accurately characterize the composition characteristics of PAHs in Chinese water environment…” (Fig. 3)
→ Suggested revision: “Composition of PAHs in different Chinese water bodies.”
All issues raised have been resolved
All issues raised have been resolved
All issues raised have been resolved
The report is a descriptive catalogue that exhibits methodological deficiencies and lacks authentic analytical progress. A comprehensive PRISMA-guided reconstruction with meta-analysis, updated literature to 2025, stringent quality assurance weighting, and expert formatting is essential before submitting to any reputable review publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Kindly see the attached file
Kindly see the attached file
Kindly see the attached file
Kindly see the attached file
1. The article uses clear, unambiguous, technically correct text, and it conforms to professional standards. However, there are occasional cases of awkward phrasing and minor structural errors that may deter comprehension.
2. Provides a comprehensive introduction with sufficient background to establish the relevance of PAH studies in China. The review falls well within the scope of PeerJ and offers a nationwide assessment valuable to environmental scientists, policymakers, and public health professionals. Given the scarcity of comprehensive national reviews on PAHs in Chinese waters, this manuscript is timely and justified even if the field has been reviewed before.
3. In the literature review, there are no direct ethical concerns.
4. The review builds upon existing literature and consolidates findings from the past decade.
5. Relevant previous literature should be appropriately referenced.
6. Figures should be relevant to the content of the article, have enough resolution, and be suitably described and labeled.
7. All appropriate raw data have been made available in accordance with data sharing rule.
8. Article content is within the aims and scope of the journal and article type.
1. The review highlights research that adheres to the highest ethical standards and complies with all relevant guidelines and regulations in the field.
2. The methodology is adequately detailed. Search strategies, data inclusion criteria, and the analytical framework (e.g., DRs, PMF, TEQ, ILCR) are well explained. The use of multiple analytical techniques to assess sources and risk enhances the robustness of the review. However, some notable points are identified.
The conclusions are clearly tied to the data presented. The discussion appropriately identifies patterns and trends in PAH pollution across regions and seasons. The limitations of current methodologies and future research directions are thoughtfully addressed. There is strong alignment between the research questions and the presented evidence. The review avoids over-generalization and does not make unsupported causal claims.
• Minor revision to improve sentence flow and eliminate redundancies in long paragraphs.
• A table summarizing regional differences in PAH levels and risks would improve clarity.
• Survey Methodology—Proper citations are missing.
• Please ensure that all methodologies referenced are supported by appropriate and credible sources.
• References (Serial Numbers 80 to 100)—These entries require proper and complete referencing. Kindly review and update the citations to adhere to the required referencing style.
• Statistical Significance (Serial Numbers 213 to 217) – Claims of significance must be backed by appropriate comparative statistical methods. Please revise these sections to include valid statistical tests (e.g., t-test, ANOVA, chi-square) and report relevant values (p-values, confidence intervals, etc.) to justify the conclusions drawn.
• Consider explicitly stating how bias in source selection (e.g., publication bias) was minimized.
• Add a short comment on the quality assessment of included studies, if applicable.
The conclusion highlights several areas needing further work, such as
• Region-specific ecological thresholds
• Assessment of PAH derivatives
• Long-term monitoring frameworks
• Integrated multimedia risk models
• Ambiguous study identity – the prose suggests primary field research rather than a literature review. “This study collected available data on PAHs pollution from 55 sampling sites…” lines 21–22 A review abstract should clarify the search strategy and synthesis method (e.g., databases, years covered, inclusion criteria) and avoid wording that implies original sampling. State plainly that the paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data.
• Methodological opacity – no mention of search period, databases, or screening criteria. Lines 78–91 (survey methodology appears later in the text, not in the abstract) Readers cannot assess scope or currency without this information. Insert one sentence in the abstract specifying the time window (e.g., 2015–2025), databases queried, and total number of studies synthesised
• The Introduction never articulates explicit research questions, hypotheses, or a concise aim statement. Lines: 72 – 74 “this study collected and analyzed …” Readers cannot judge whether later sections deliver on promised goals; editors expect a transparent purpose statement in the Introduction. Insert a final paragraph that lists (i) clearly framed research questions and (ii) the review’s boundaries (years, data types, water compartments).
• Lines 111 – 114 “This study primarily focused on dissolved PAHs…” Earlier sentences suggest a whole-water perspective; narrowing to dissolved phase this late confuses readers and misguides expectations. Define the compartment up-front (surface waters, dissolved phase) and keep terminology consistent throughout.
• Three consecutive sentences describe basic PAH chemistry already familiar to the target audience. Lines: 41 – 49 definition + emission pathways Excess background dilutes focus and pushes the literature gap off the first page. Condense to one sentence with a recent high-impact citation; move detailed chemistry to Supplementary Information if needed.
• Lines: 68 – 69 “pollution levels are relatively high compared to other regions of the world.” No quantitative comparison or citation is offered; this is an assertion, not evidence. Either supply global benchmarking data (e.g., median ΣPAHs for Europe/USA) with citations, or remove the claim.
• Only the absence of a “nation-wide” synthesis is mentioned; other critical gaps (e.g., seasonal drivers, policy implications, dissolved vs. particulate phases, emerging analytical techniques) are ignored. Lines: 70 – 74 The Introduction should justify why this review is needed beyond mere spatial coverage. Expand the gap analysis to include methodological, regulatory, and temporal dimensions, citing recent reviews (≤2023) that stop short of those angles.
• Lack of quantitative context for ‘rising emissions’. Lines: 45 – 46. The claim is qualitative; no figures or trend data are provided. Insert national emission‐trend statistics (e.g., Mt year⁻¹, 2010–2024) to demonstrate urgency.
• Non-standard data sources – five “websites” are listed, two of which are informal mirror sites (xue.glgoo.net, xueshubaidu.com). Authoritative bibliographic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, CNKI Scholar, ProQuest) are absent, undermining coverage and rigor. Lines 80-84 Use at least one multidisciplinary database plus a Chinese core collection; justify each source.
• Search string opaque and primitive – only five keywords are given, with no Boolean logic, wildcards or field restrictions. Replication is impossible because database-specific syntax is omitted. Lines 80-82 Provide the exact strings for each database (e.g., "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" AND China AND (river* OR lake* OR reservoir*)).
• Scope is “Chinese water environment,” yet no statement on whether non-English/Chinese papers were excluded or translated. Potentially relevant Japanese, Korean or Russian studies are missed. Implicit throughout the section State language limits and, if applied, justify them; consider bilingual search or sensitivity analysis.
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria limited to analytical technique – GC-MS/HPLC requirements (lines 92-96) address QA/QC but not study design (e.g., sample size, temporal resolution, reporting units). Lines 92-97 Define full eligibility criteria (water matrix, detection limits, sampling period, peer-review status).
• No risk-of-bias or quality appraisal of the retrieved studies – the review treats all papers equally, inviting propagation of flawed primary data. Entire methodology block Adopt a simple quality checklist (e.g., Joanna Briggs, Newcastle-Ottawa) and weight or exclude low-quality studies.
• PRISMA flow diagram absent – I cannot verify how many records were screened, excluded (with reasons), or finally analysed. Not reported Add a PRISMA-2020 flow chart with record counts at each stage.
• Almost no critical appraisal of primary studies. The review recites concentration ranges, molecular‐weight percentages and risk values, but never judges study quality (sampling design, QA/QC, detection limits) or weighs stronger vs. weaker evidence. Occurrence section 101-130; Composition (242-279); Risk (441-470) Readers cannot trust aggregated numbers if low-quality studies are mixed with high-quality ones. Add a quality-assessment rubric (e.g., modified Joanna Briggs checklist), report inter-reviewer concordance, and down-weight or exclude poor studies.
• Logical leap from descriptive stats to management advice without causal linkage. Paragraph recommends nationwide monitoring network (220-224) but never analyses cost-effectiveness or policy gaps. Lines: 220-224 Insert a bridging analysis: which specific uncertainties impede regulation? Cite Chinese water-quality guideline framework and show how better spatial/temporal coverage would narrow them.
• No hypothesis reconciliation. Because objectives were never explicit, the discussion cannot evaluate whether they were met or where results diverged. Entire section Add a lead-in paragraph revisiting the stated aims (once clarified in Introduction) and mapping each key finding to them.
Organize the entire manuscript
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.