Spatial and temporal Variability of bacterial and chemical pollution in marine sediments of the beach of Lattakia city

  1. RAMIA AHMAD SHREBA
  2. Badr Al Ali
  3. Hussam Eddin Laika

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

This study focuses on evaluation bacterial and chemical contamination of coastal sediments in three sites in the coast of Lattakia during the summer 2021 and winter 2022. It was achieved by determining the concentrations of heavy metals (lead and cadmium) and microbial contamination indicators (Total Bacteria (TB), Fecal Coliform (FC) and Fecal Streptococcus (FS). The source of pollution was determined by the FC/FS ratio. The results showed high values ​​of microbial contamination indicators and concentrations of heavy metals in the studied sites in winter and summer respectively, where TB values ​​were between (1.3-3.75) × 10 5 CFU/100g and (1.55-6.3) × 10 5 CFU/100g and FC Between (2.5-3) × 10 3 CFU/100g, FS (2-2.9) × 10 3 CFU/100g and lead concentration was (37.15-41.69) mg/kg and cadmium concentration was (1.67-3.14) mg/kg.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000496.v1 on Access Microbiology
  2. Access Microbiology

    The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. Please deposit the data underlying the work in the Society’s data repository Figshare account here: https://microbiology.figshare.com/submit. Please also cite this data in the Data Summary of the main manuscript and list it as a unique reference in the References section. When you resubmit your article, the Editorial staff will post this data publicly on Figshare and add the DOI to the Data Summary section where you have cited it. This data will be viewable on the Figshare website with a link to the preprint and vice versa, allowing for greater discovery of your work, and the unique DOI of the data means it can be cited independently. Having received reviewer comments, it is clear the work requires additional experimental work. The reviewers raise concerns regarding the scientific rigour and experimental design of the work. The reviewers believe the results shown in the manuscript do not support the conclusions presented.

  3. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    In this article the authors describe analysis of bacterial counts and select metal quantification from sediments across three sites in Lattakia City. Whilst with further analysis and work on the manuscript, this article may end up scientifically sound, in its current form it is lacking in some substantial elements. Please see below for comments and suggestions. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data 1.1 - Major concern is only one sample per site is collected per season. Additionally, it is unclear how many repeats of assessment were made for each of these single samples. There is no discussion of variability, there is no statistical analysis, nor any error bars etc on the figures. As such in its current state, it is not possible to make any judgement from the data. Certainly it is not possible to make specific claims of 'x location has more bacteria than y location because...'. 1.2 - Additionally, the numbers (cfu/g) presented are not very different (e.g. all 10^5). Because of the low sample number, and no statistical analysis/comment on variation - it is not possible for the authors to make comments such as above ('x location has more bacteria than y location because...') and unless more data and/or further analysis is completed, must be removed. 1.3 - The data is not available, and the manuscript suggests there is no data to share, but there is plenty of data presented in the manuscript. So this needs to be addressed. 1.4 - No description of why the sites where selected is provided. Why these three locations? What is a station? 1.5 - More detail on sample collection required. Also more accuracy on dates. 'Summer' and 'Winter' is too vague. 1.6 - line 121 - 'low values of TB...' - how do you define low? 1.7 - line 129-130 - 'while it isnt recorded any value...' please refine this sentence. 2. Presentation of results 2.1 - Figures are poor quality. As above, they are missing error bars. The bars are not distinct enough (similar colour), and there is no key/not described in the caption. Some figures are stretched and style is not consistent. 3. How the style and organisation of the paper communicates and represents key findings 3.1 - The paper is very short, so the organisation is fine. 4. Literature analysis or discussion 4.1 - There is very limited introduction and discussion. These should be expanded to put the paper into context. 5. Any other relevant comments 5.1 - please expand/explain temporal and spatial (line 191) earlier in the manuscript.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Poor

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Not at all

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  4. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    This paper looks at pollution levels, as indicated by bacteria, and Pb and Cd, in aquatic sediments, on a section of Mediterranean coast. The abstract and the introduction both lack details as to why this study was carried out - what is the rationale for it, beyond simply measuring pollution. More details about why this study is important are needed. Does it fill a gap in the literature, what is new here? Why are the authors combining metal pollution and faecal pollution? What are the precise questions that the authors seek to answer with this research? Just routine measurement of pollution is not really enough for a publication is a quality scientific journal. The methods lack full information as to the methodology used - for example there is no map of a sampling site, while the metal analysis description lacks information on, for example, whether sediments were dried, whether sediments were sieved before digestion, what temp the digestion was carried out at, how long they were digested etc. I am also unsure sure why lead and cadmium were chosen as the metals as opposed to other potential metals - are these particularly prevalent, or a particular problem, in the study area. Why is arsenic in the abbreviations list but not mentioned at all elsewhere? The paper has a lack of statistical or replication. It seems 3 samples at each site were taken but it is unclear how close they were to each other, and if these are to be considered replicates. There is no statistical analysis of the patterns observed, for examples the authors say that there was a decrease or increase in bacterial numbers, but there is no statistical evidence for these assertions. The figure legends also give no indication of n-numbers, replication etc. The authors also state under "Data Summary" that no new data has been collected for the study. However, this is untrue, as the authors do present new data. There is supplementary information, but this is not referred to in the main text In the Results and Discussion there is a lack of comparison of the findings with other published material - there is little attempt to put the results into context with other studies - for example, how so the findings compare with other similar areas, are the levels of metals particularly high? What are the implications of your findings? Why are they important? References to the literature are present in the discussion, but there is little attempt to critically analyse the authors own findings in relation to the literature. There are conclusions but the first two for example, are simply a statement of the findings, rather than a conclusion. As stated above, I do feel that the paper lacks a clear aim/research question that this conclusion (and discussion) can refer to and discuss. Overall, I feel that the nature of the above comments mean that my recommendation must be a major revision at best.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Poor

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Poor

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes