A pilot study about microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier

González-Pleiter, Miguel; Lacerot, Gissell; Edo, Carlos; Pablo Lozoya, Juan; Leganés, Francisco; Fernández-Piñas, Francisca; Rosal, Roberto; Teixeira-de-Mello, Franco

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2531-2021

Articles | Volume 15, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2531-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2531-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 6

Research article

|

03 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 03 Jun 2021

A pilot study about microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier

Miguel González-Pleiter, Gissell Lacerot, Carlos Edo, Juan Pablo Lozoya, Francisco Leganés, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Roberto Rosal, and Franco Teixeira-de-Mello

Download

Final revised paper (published on 03 Jun 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Oct 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'TC-2020-261', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Miguel González-Pleiter, 09 Feb 2021
RC2: 'Minor remarks on the text', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Miguel González-Pleiter, 09 Feb 2021
RC3: 'Review of Brief Communication: Atmospheric dry deposition of microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier', Rachel Obbard, 08 Dec 2020
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Miguel González-Pleiter, 09 Feb 2021
RC4: 'Review report on ”Atmospheric dry deposition of microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier: The case of the expanded polystyrene” (tc-2020-261)', Melanie Bergmann, 10 Dec 2020
- AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Miguel González-Pleiter, 09 Feb 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (10 Feb 2021) by Olaf Eisen

AR by Miguel González-Pleiter on behalf of the Authors (11 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Feb 2021) by Olaf Eisen

RR by Rachel Obbard (15 Feb 2021)

RR by Steve Allen (23 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Re. GonzaleZ -Pleiter et al. A pilot study about microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier: the role of atmospheric dry deposition
This MS has already been thoroughly and ably reviewed by Dr. Berghmann and Dr. Obbard and I agree with their appraisals. Given the length of time this MS has already been in review, I don’t want to delay decisions so I will give a brief review.
I am convinced the authors found plastic on the glacier, which is very interesting and could encourage meaningful change in Antarctic operations handling of plastic. For that I think the MS has merit.
I have significant misgivings about the title as I feel it is misleading.
The term “Atmospheric Dry Deposition” entails that the material was atmosphericly entrained (the definition is >10 m AGL). I do not see any evidence of that.
I think that the material merely underwent saltation transport from the beach. I.e. it’s more likely it bounced along the ground up from the beach or from the Artigas base (a lot of red/white buildings). Evidencing the base as a source would have made a better focus. Aeolian transport is a more accurate description as it covers all manner of wind transport. I think all instances of “atmospheric dry deposition” should be removed before publication. This is not an atmospheric transport study and should not claim to be.
Elevation and slope information is missing. The distance from the shore line has not been made clear. One can infer from the maps but distances and topography information should be clearly described. These are important to the understanding of possible transport vectors. A 3D elevation map can be made in GIS software.
Methodology: The 12hr testing is not useful as the material could have been blown in from just outside the squares or melting of the surface exposed new plastics (temperatures provided are from >300km away). It is disappointing that local meteo wind data from Artigas base was not included in the reporting. Average historical wind roses and wind reports from 322km away do not add to the evidence and I am sure the Artigas research station keeps daily records which would have been helpful. I also see no proof of the absence of rainfall/snowfall as I assume the authors did not camp on the glacier. I doubt that it would have any bearing on your results but again, being 322km away from a meteo monitoring station is not proof it did not rain/snow overnight on the glacier. I also note no mention of fragments being partially frozen into the ice which is hard to believe did not occur.
A 60% FT-IR match with the library with such massive pieces is at the extreme low end with the given settings. I would expect >80% (which is normally the lower limit) to be easily achievable. The Omnic software should have been able to tell you the composition of the other fragments too which would have been interesting and useful for locating sources. I suggest that there is something either wrong with the machines or the methods.
I realise these are quite large fragments making contamination less likely, but “blanks” are an integral part of any microplastic study and the lack of even a lab blank is very disappointing. It should be mentioned what material the 100 mL ISO reagent bottles are made of (we can’t assume the reader will know). I understand this MS started as a short piece with limited space but now it’s an article it would also be useful to have the photos of the fragments in the supplementary. I note some grammatical errors throughout the MS and spelling mistakes which I assume will be addressed in final editorial (fig 2 D,F,H, *wavelength).

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Mar 2021) by Olaf Eisen

AR by Miguel González-Pleiter on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Mar 2021) by Olaf Eisen

AR by Sarah Buchmann on behalf of the Authors (25 Mar 2021) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (30 Mar 2021) by Olaf Eisen