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.
Thank you for your efforts to revise your manuscript based on reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Toonen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No further comment
No additional comments
No further comment
The authors have fully answered my queries and substantially improved grammar and phraseology. However, please check Table 1 in the supplementary materials there are citations with superscripts, but no superscript entries in the table.
Please revise your manuscript according to reviewer comments. Once you have completed the revisions, I would encourage you to read the manuscript carefully for grammar.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This submission is topical and will be of interest to all those researching and effected by Golden-tide problem in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
It is generally well written, although there is some awkward phraseology, such as line 197.
The scientific question and experimental set up seem sound with appropriate statistical methods. The figures are clear and have sufficient captions for them to be read stand-alone.
The primary method is XRF, which, although novel, is not the standard method of 'heavy metal' analysis.; more discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of this method relative to the more usual procedures such as ICP may be of value.
The scientific question and experimental set up seem sound with appropriate statistical methods. The figures are clear and have sufficient captions for them to be read stand-alone.
The primary method is XRF, which, although novel, is not the standard method of 'heavy metal' analysis.; more discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of this method relative to the more usual procedures such as ICP may be of value.
This submission is topical and will be of interest to all those researching and effected by Golden-tide problem in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
It is generally well written, although there is some awkward phraseology, such as line 197.
The scientific question and experimental set up seem sound with appropriate statistical methods. The figures are clear and have sufficient captions for them to be read stand-alone.
The primary method is XRF, which, although novel, is not the standard method of 'heavy metal' analysis.; more discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of this method relative to the more usual procedures such as ICP may be of value.
no comment
Because the temporal variability was analyzed, the collection date of each sample should be given in Table1. I am also concerned with the very few samples in some locations. As there were so many floating Sargassum in the sea, why only one sample was collected in some places. The replication for these locations was not enough. At least the authors should describe the reason for the limited number of samples.
no comment
I do not agree on one point in the first paragraph of Discussion.
The authors wrote the heavy metals were unlikely adsorbed nearshore. But as I know, the adsorption process is usually very fast, so it cannot exclude this possibility.
In the method section:
Did you handle the samples before drying them? As you have discussed, epiphytes may adsorb or absorb metals. Did you remove the epiphytes before the analysis?
I am concerned with the limited sampling size in some locations. If this issue can be addressed reasonably, I recommend the acception of this MS as basically it is well organized and well written.
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.