Review
The aspects of ecotoxicology are associated with the spread of pollutants in the hydrosphere as well as the development of the environmental protection measures that are taken to minimize the crucial effect of toxic wastes emission. The paper aims to analyze the level of toxic wastes in the Marmara Sea and define whether the toxic levels exceed the requirements of the European Community of seafood intended for human consumption.
The research data that is provided is rather detailed and sufficient, however, the paper is overloaded with numbers and indices, which makes it difficult to read. The author should have included all the numbers and data in tables and graphs, while the paper itself should be focused on interpretations and explanations mainly. Hence, the size of the paper is unreasonably extended, while the actual size needed is essentially smaller.
The importance and actuality of the paper can not be exaggerated, as the problem of toxic wastes is one of the most burning in Europe. Hence, the European community is aiming to avoid and mitigate possible ecologic crises associated with toxic wastes into the hydrosphere. This paper provides the required monitoring tools for controlling the ecological situation in Europe and the basis for performing additional researches and measurements required for assessing the ecotoxical situation. (Boon, Davies, et.al., 2007)
Style and Format
The organization level of the paper is rather high, and the structure is perfect. All the sources are properly formatted and the factual information is properly referenced. However, the source list required essential improvements as most of the resources are outdated and represent outdated concepts. Surely, they may be relied upon, nevertheless, the research of such a scale should be based on newer sources. As for the post-2000 books and articles, they do not give reliable research results, as they are also based on outdated sources. (Lauenstein, Daskalakis, 1998)
The research of persistent organic pollutants should be based on the clear notification of these components in the biosphere. If this component is a key one in the aspects of ecotoxical contamination, the explanation should be given from the chemical and biological perspectives. (Gomez-Gutierrez, Garnacho, 2007) Though the analytical method part involves all the required indices and indicators, the explanation which is given in the discussion part does not cover the enlisted parameters.
In general, the ecotoxicology approach is aimed at researching the anthropogenic toxicants, and the ecological effects of biotic and abiotic stresses (Lettieri, 2006). Nevertheless, the paper does not place a focus on explaining the secondary effects of anthropogenic activities. Hence, acidification should be studied as the secondary effect of dioxin-related contamination.
The water surface is generally subjected to serious anthropogenic ecotoxical influence, and the paper gives the clear explanation of all the negative sides of anthropogenic influence. As it is stated by Roots, Henkelmann, Schramm (2004, p. 339):
It has been proposed that this broadening of focus from purely toxicological effects to the consideration of more general stressors moves beyond the definition of “ecotoxicology”. It is also argued that the field had diversified to become Stress Ecology and that, as the effects of anthropogenic toxicants compound existing, natural stressors, an exclusive study of their effects in an ecological context was nonsensical.
In the light of this statement, the paper is based on the traditional ecotoxicology concepts and defines the key role of anthropogenic influence in the geographic region of the Marmara Sea. Nevertheless, the study may not be regarded full, as only mussels are subjected to analysis, moreover, mussels are from only part of the sea and coastline.
Anyway, independently of the statements of traditional approaches of contemporary ecotoxicology, the paper is written with sufficient capacity for further researches, as the toxic wastes are observed not only in the Marmara Sea, and not only in mussels. (Van den Berg, Birnbaum, et.al. 2006) Though, to be accepted for publishing in a journal, the paper should be restructured. This restructuring should relate to the manner of data arrangement, as the paper is extremely overloaded with indices and numbers, while they should be arranged in accurate tables and graphs.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the importance of the paper is not doubted, however, the author did not pay sufficient attention to the aspects of toxic wastes spread and sources. Considering the fact that the results of the study revealed that the contamination level is not high at the moment, there is a necessity to control the sources but not the contamination level. (Piersanti, Scrucca, et.al. 2006) Anyway, the actual importance of the study methods should not be underestimated, and the values of the chemical analysis reveal the sincere interest of the author to the problem of hydrosphere contamination by toxic wastes.
Comments
The author needs to consider newer researches in the sphere of ecotoxicology, as most of the used sources are too outdated. Regardless of the fact that the information is sources and cited properly, the author needs to address the environmental protection and ecological legislation of the European Union.
Checklist
Scientific Questions
- Is this a new and original contribution? [x] Yes [] No
- Is the topic
- Suitable for the journal? [x] Yes [] No
- Of broad international interest? [] Yes [x] No
- Better suited for local journal/audience? [x] Yes [] No
- Is the quality assurance/quality control documented? [] Yes [x] No
- Quantity of data presented [x] Too much [] Adequate [] Too little
- Quality of interpretation and conclusions [] 1 [x] 2 [] 3
- Support of interpretations/conclusions by data presented [x] 1 [] 2 [] 3
- Importance of this work [] 1 [x] 2 [] 3
Technical Questions
- Is the abstract informative? [x] Yes [] No
- Is the title adequate and are the keywords appropriate? [x] Yes [] No
- Is this paper
- Properly organized? [x] Yes [] No
- Difficult to read/understand? [x] Yes [] No
- Written in good grammar and syntax? [x] Yes [] No
- Are the illustrations/tables
- Useful and necessary? [] Yes [x] No
- Of good quality? [x] Yes [] No
- Are the references cited relevant and up to date? [] Yes [x] No
- Is the length of the paper in keeping with its importance? [] Yes [x] No
- Is a testable hypothesis presented? [x] Yes [] No
- Overall quality of the work [] 1 [x] 2 [] 3
Reference List
Boon, P. J., Davies, B. R., & Petts, G. E. (Eds.). (2007). Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy, and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Web.
Gomez-Gutierrez, A., Garnacho, E., Bayona, J. M., Albaiges, J., (2007). Assessment of the Mediterranean sediments contamination by persistent organic pollutants. Environ. Pollut. 148, 396-408.
Lauenstein ,G. G., Daskalakis, K. D., (1998) U.S. Long-term coastal contaminant temporal trends determined from mollusk monitoring programs, 1965-1993. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37, 6-13.
Lettieri, T. (2006). Recent Applications of DNA Microarray Technology to Toxicology and Ecotoxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(1), 4.
Piersanti, A., Scrucca, L., Galarini, R., Tavolini, T., (2006) Polychlorobiphenyls (18 congeners) in mussels from middle Adriatic Sea. Organohalogen Compd. 68, 1951-1954.
Roots, O., Henkelmann, B., Schramm, K.W., (2004). Concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in soil in the vicinity of a landfill. Chemosphere 57, 337-342.
Van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L.S., Denison, M., De Vito, M., Farland, W., Feeley, M., Fiedler, H., Hakansson, H., Hanberg, A., Haws, L., Rose, M., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tohyama, C., Tritscher, A., Tuomisto, J., Tysklind, M., Walker, N., Peterson, R.E., (2006) The 2005 World Health Organization re-evaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Tox. Sci. 93, 223-241.