From the journal Environmental Science: Atmospheres Peer review history

22-Jun-2024

Dear Dr Chandrasekaran:

Manuscript ID: EA-ART-05-2024-000065
TITLE: Particulate Matter and Nanoplastics: Synergistic Impact on Artemia salina

Thank you for your submission to Environmental Science: Atmospheres, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.

I have carefully evaluated your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, and the reports indicate that major revisions are necessary.

Please submit a revised manuscript which addresses all of the reviewers’ comments. Further peer review of your revised manuscript may be needed. When you submit your revised manuscript please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made. Full details of the files you need to submit are listed at the end of this email.

Please submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible using this link:

*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos?link_removed

(This link goes straight to your account, without the need to log on to the system. For your account security you should not share this link with others.)

Alternatively, you can login to your account (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos) where you will need your case-sensitive USER ID and password.

You should submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible; please note you will receive a series of automatic reminders. If your revisions will take a significant length of time, please contact me. If I do not hear from you, I may withdraw your manuscript from consideration and you will have to resubmit. Any resubmission will receive a new submission date.

The Royal Society of Chemistry requires all submitting authors to provide their ORCID iD when they submit a revised manuscript. This is quick and easy to do as part of the revised manuscript submission process. We will publish this information with the article, and you may choose to have your ORCID record updated automatically with details of the publication.

Please also encourage your co-authors to sign up for their own ORCID account and associate it with their account on our manuscript submission system. For further information see: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/processes-policies/#attribution-id

Environmental Science: Atmospheres strongly encourages authors of research articles to include an ‘Author contributions’ section in their manuscript, for publication in the final article. This should appear immediately above the ‘Conflict of interest’ and ‘Acknowledgement’ sections. I strongly recommend you use CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy, https://credit.niso.org/) for standardised contribution descriptions. All authors should have agreed to their individual contributions ahead of submission and these should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Please refer to our general author guidelines https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/author-and-reviewer-hub/authors-information/responsibilities/ for more information.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,
Prof. Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

************

Reviewer 1

An interesting topic with results sufficient to support the conclusions. The methodology used is scientifically sound, and the suggested approach can potentially be applied in many cases of field. In my opinion, the study is suitable to be published with some improvements.

The authors need to address the following:
1. Abstract – Spell out SOD. Please quantify how much decrease or increase when comparing results, maybe in terms of percentage?
2. Sample Collection – Maybe the author can discuss a bit how the PM sampler works? Does it draw samples from air and through a quartz/PTFE filter, or is it one of those hydro-cyclones where you collect wet PM? How do you separate/collected PM2.5, any sharp cut cyclones used?
3. Statistical Analysis – Make sure your data do not violate the ANOVA assumptions and mention any data transformation if there is any. Any particular reason why Bonferrroni test was used? Also please explicitly state your hypothesis being tested.
4. FTIR analysis results (Line 317) – The authors might want to elaborate why the PM collected were predominantly polymers. Did they sample near a plastic/polymer-based manufacturing plant? Can they cite some literature comparing their collected PM with published urban PM? It would have been helpful if they have FTIR spectra of polymers mentioned and compare it side by side with their PM FTIR spectra. As it stands, a typical urban PM should consist of organic C such as from fuel combustion, a good mix of secondary aerosols from NOx, SOx, NH4 interactions, some metals, salts, and ions. Some of these components should have representative peaks in their FTIR results and needs to be mentioned.
5. Line 426 – no significant changes mentioned but p values were all < 0.05?

Reviewer 2

Manuscript Number; EA-ART-05-2024-000065
Title; Particulate Matter and Nanoplastics: Synergistic Impact on Artemia salina
Although the topic is of interest to the scientific community, before considering it for publication, this paper should be improved. Authors should reconsider the main objective of the paper according to the content. They should try to synthesize and emphasize the study's main findings and avoid long sentences. Furthermore, authors should avoid drawing risky conclusions.
Evaluation; Minor Revision.
1. Abstract; The authors should be revised the abstract, it is too general. Moreover, it could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article. An informative and representative conclusion should be added to the abstract.
2. Please specify the definition on nanoplastics. What is the size of nanoplastics?
3. “It refers to particles that are smaller than 5 millimeters in size.” This definition should be referring to Micro-plastics (MPs).
4. Definition of micro-and nano-plastics (size) need to be clear in this manuscript. Authors should be added it in introduction part. The introduction provides an adequate background on PM2.5 and micro-and nano-plastics. While the manuscript provides an overview of origin and sources of nano-plastic, it lacks original research findings or case studies in linked between nanoplastic information and PMs. Consider including practical examples or case studies to illustrate the concepts discussed.
5. Actually, Most of PM study; classified to sizes based on aerodynamic diameter and can be classified into three main types: coarse PM (PM10-2.5), fine PM (PM2.5) and ultrafine PM (PM0.1). Need to add to background information.
References
- Inerb, M.; Phairuang, W.; Paluang, P.; Hata, M.; Furuuchi, M.; Wangpakapattanawong, P. Carbon and Trace Element Compo- sitions of Total Suspended Particles (TSP) and Nanoparticles (PM0.1) in Ambient Air of Southern Thailand and Characterization of Their Sources. Atmosphere 2022, 13, doi:10.3390/atmos13040626.
- Suriyawong, P.; Chuetor, S.; Samae, H.; Piriyakarnsakul, S.; Amin, M.; Furuuchi, M.; Hata, M.; Inerb, M.; Phairuang, W. Airborne particulate matter from biomass burning in Thailand: Recent issues, challenges, and options. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14261, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon. 2023.e14261.
6. In the main text, many numeric data are given with too many significant figures; 2 significant figures suffice, and 3 suffice in case the first significant figure is "1".
7. You must provide all the figures in high resolution. Make all the labels and legends more legible.
8. Conclusion; the findings could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.

24-06-2024
To
The Editor-in-Chief,
Environmental Science: Atmospheres
Sub: Regarding the submission of the Revised Manuscript (EA-ART-05-2024-000065)
Dear Editor,
Please find our Revised manuscript entitled” Particulate Matter and Nanoplastics: Synergistic Impact on Artemia salina” for consideration in Environmental Science: Atmospheres. As per editorial and reviewer instructions, we have replied point-to-point to the reviewers’ comments. We are attaching a separate detailed response letter in this regard. We have incorporated the changes in the revised manuscript, and all the changes have been highlighted in the manuscript. Please find below the detailed point-to-point response/rebuttal to the reviewer comments received.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A POINT TO POINT RESPONSE TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS
Manuscript Number: EA-ART-05-2024-000065
REVIEWER REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author An interesting topic with results sufficient to support the conclusions. The methodology used is scientifically sound, and the suggested approach can potentially be applied in many cases of field. In my opinion, the study is suitable to be published with some improvements. The authors need to address the following:
Comment 1. Abstract – Spell out SOD. Please quantify how much decrease or increase when comparing results, maybe in terms of percentage?
Response 1. We thank the reviewers for this valuable suggestion. In the abstract, SOD will be spelled out as Superoxide Dismutase. This study did not perform quantitative analysis to measure the exact changes in SOD activity. However, statistical differences in SOD activity between experimental conditions were reported in the results section.
Comment 2. Sample Collection – Maybe the author can discuss a bit how the PM sampler works? Does it draw samples from air and through a quartz/PTFE filter, or is it one of those hydro-cyclones where you collect wet PM? How do you separate/collected PM2.5, any sharp cut cyclones used?
Response 2. Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our sample collection methodology. In our study, we used the Envirotech APM550 PM sampler equipped with a PM2.5 particle size separator (impactor) followed by quartz filters with 2.5 mm pores. This setup effectively captures the PM2.5 fraction, consisting of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers, onto the quartz filters. Quartz filters were chosen for their chemical inertness and high efficiency in capturing fine particles, ensuring precise measurement of PM2.5 concentrations. Before sampling, the quartz filters underwent pretreatment at 800°C for 200 minutes to minimize background levels of organic species. The sampler maintained a consistent airflow rate throughout the sampling process, calibrated to extract a specified volume of air over a defined duration, thus ensuring the collection of representative samples of ambient air. No hydro-cyclones were utilized in our sampling setup; instead, PM2.5 particles were separated based on size using the impactor within the APM550 sampler, which functions akin to a sharp-cut cyclone. Detailed protocols were clearly mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3. Statistical Analysis – Make sure your data do not violate the ANOVA assumptions and mention any data transformation if there is any. Any particular reason why Bonferrroni test was used? Also please explicitly state your hypothesis being tested.
Response 3. We thank the reviewer for these valuable comments. We have thoroughly checked the ANOVA assumptions. The normality of the data was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test (P > 0.05 for all groups), and the homogeneity of variances was verified with Levene's test (P > 0.05). As these assumptions were met, no data transformations were necessary. We chose the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons because it is a conservative method that effectively controls for Type I errors, which is crucial due to the multiple comparisons in our study. Additionally, we have explicitly stated the hypotheses being tested: the null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no significant difference in the impact of particulate matter and Nanoplastics on Artemia salina, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is that there is a significant difference. We have revised the manuscript to include these details in the statistical analysis section.
Comment 4. FTIR analysis results (Line 317) – The authors might want to elaborate why the PM collected were predominantly polymers. Did they sample near a plastic/polymer-based manufacturing plant? Can they cite some literature comparing their collected PM with published urban PM? It would have been helpful if they have FTIR spectra of polymers mentioned and compare it side by side with their PM FTIR spectra. As it stands, a typical urban PM should consist of organic C such as from fuel combustion, a good mix of secondary aerosols from NOx, SOx, NH4 interactions, some metals, salts, and ions. Some of these components should have representative peaks in their FTIR results and needs to be mentioned.
Response 4. We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we added that the predominance of polymers in our FTIR analysis results is likely attributed to various indoor sources rather than proximity to a specific plastic/polymer manufacturing plant. We have cited supportive literature discussing the prevalence of polymers in urban PM, which supports our findings.
Comment 5. Line 426 – no significant changes mentioned but p values were all < 0.05?
Response 5. Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have revised the passage concerning the statistical results of catalase activity under different exposure conditions. The updated passage now provides a clearer presentation of the findings. However, when exposed to 1 µg/mL in combination with 1 PPM of PS, no significant changes in catalase activity were observed. In contrast, catalase activity showed substantial increases when exposed to 5 µg/mL (p = 0.0002) and 10 µg/mL (p = 0.01).
Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
Manuscript Number; EA-ART-05-2024-000065
Title; Particulate Matter and Nanoplastics: Synergistic Impact on Artemia salina Although the topic is of interest to the scientific community, before considering it for publication, this paper should be improved. Authors should reconsider the main objective of the paper according to the content. They should try to synthesize and emphasize the study's main findings and avoid long sentences. Furthermore, authors should avoid drawing risky conclusions. Evaluation; Minor Revision.
Comment 1. Abstract; The authors should be revised the abstract, it is too general. Moreover, it could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article. An informative and representative conclusion should be added to the abstract.
Response 1. We thank the reviewer for valuable feedback. We have revised the abstract to provide more specific details and develop the content further, incorporating interesting data from the article. Additionally, we have included an informative conclusion that summarizes the key findings of our study in the revised manuscript.
Comment 2. Please specify the definition on nanoplastics. What is the size of nanoplastics?
Response 2. Thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated a clear definition of nano plastics along with their size range, supported by appropriate citations.
Comment 3. "It refers to particles that are smaller than 5 millimeters in size." This definition should be referring to Micro-plastics (MPs).
Response 3. Thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated a clear definition of Microplastics along with their size range, supported by appropriate citations.
Comment 4. Definition of micro-and nano-plastics (size) need to be clear in this manuscript. Authors should be added it in introduction part. The introduction provides an adequate background on PM2.5 and micro-and nano-plastics. While the manuscript provides an overview of origin and sources of nano-plastic, it lacks original research findings or case studies in linked between nanoplastic information and PMs. Consider including practical examples or case studies to illustrate the concepts discussed.
Response 4. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed the comments by clarifying the definitions of micro- and nano-plastics in the introduction section, providing a comprehensive background on PM2.5 and micro- and nano-plastics. Additionally, we have incorporated practical examples and case studies to illustrate the relationship between micro and nanoplastics and PMs, thereby enhancing the manuscript with relevant original research findings.
Comment 5. Actually, Most of PM study; classified to sizes based on aerodynamic diameter and can be classified into three main types: coarse PM (PM10-2.5), fine PM (PM2.5) and ultrafine PM (PM0.1). Need to add to background information.
References
- Inerb, M.; Phairuang, W.; Paluang, P.; Hata, M.; Furuuchi, M.; Wangpakapattanawong, P. Carbon and Trace Element Compo- sitions of Total Suspended Particles (TSP) and Nanoparticles (PM0.1) in Ambient Air of Southern Thailand and Characterization of Their Sources. Atmosphere 2022, 13, doi:10.3390/atmos13040626.
- Suriyawong, P.; Chuetor, S.; Samae, H.; Piriyakarnsakul, S.; Amin, M.; Furuuchi, M.; Hata, M.; Inerb, M.; Phairuang, W. Airborne particulate matter from biomass burning in Thailand: Recent issues, challenges, and options. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14261, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon. 2023.e14261.
Response 5. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added the classification of particulate matter (coarse PM10-2.5, fine PM2.5, and ultrafine PM0.1) to the background information, along with the relevant references in the revised manuscript.
Comment 6. In the main text, many numeric data are given with too many significant figures; 2 significant figures suffice, and 3 suffice in case the first significant figure is "1".
Response 6. Thank you for pointing out the issue with significant figures. We have revised the numerical data throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency with the recommended precision: 2 significant figures for most data points and 3 significant figures when the first significant figure is "1."
Comment 7. You must provide all the figures in high resolution. Make all the labels and legends more legible.
Response 7. Thank you for your feedback. We have updated all figures to high resolution and enhanced the readability of labels and legends. These improvements should ensure better clarity and understanding of the figures.
Comment 8. Conclusion; the findings could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.
Response 8. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the conclusion to emphasize the significance of our findings, particularly the verification of breathable nanoparticles (NPs) in indoor and outdoor air samples and their toxicological effects on Artemia salina. The revised conclusion now highlights the observed biochemical impacts, such as increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels and changes in superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities. These additions strengthen the conclusion and better communicate the importance and implications of our study.
.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Hopefully, the revised manuscript will meet the stringent quality requirements of the journal. Looking forward to your favourable response,
Thanking you.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. N. Chandrasekaran, D.Sc
Senior professor
E-mail: nchandrasekaran@vit.ac.in, Nchandra40@hotmail.com
Centre for Nanobiotechnology,
Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore -632014.

02-Jul-2024

Dear Dr Chandrasekaran:

Manuscript ID: EA-ART-05-2024-000065.R1
TITLE: Particulate Matter and Nanoplastics: Synergistic Impact on Artemia salina

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Environmental Science: Atmospheres. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in its current form. I have copied any final comments from the reviewer(s) below.

You will shortly receive a separate email from us requesting you to submit a licence to publish for your article, so that we can proceed with the preparation and publication of your manuscript.

You can highlight your article and the work of your group on the back cover of Environmental Science: Atmospheres. If you are interested in this opportunity please contact the editorial office for more information.

Promote your research, accelerate its impact – find out more about our article promotion services here: https://rsc.li/promoteyourresearch.

We will publicise your paper on our Twitter account @EnvSciRSC – to aid our publicity of your work please fill out this form: https://form.jotform.com/211263048265047

How was your experience with us? Let us know your feedback by completing our short 5 minute survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/RSC-author-satisfaction-energyenvironment/

By publishing your article in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, you are supporting the Royal Society of Chemistry to help the chemical science community make the world a better place.

With best wishes,

Prof. Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

Reviewer 2

This revised version is suitable for publication.