Transparent Exopolymer Particle (TEPs) Dynamics and Contribution to Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) in Jaran Bay, Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting article, hot topic. However, there are some observations that could improve the article.
Water sampling should be standardized. Please indicate the standard.
In the methodology does not describe any analysis used in figure 5? Correliation? Regression? No significance level specified.
There should be more statistical processing of the data. Relationships between TEP, POC and environmental values can be alculated.
In the text there is no reference to figures 4 and 5. It doesn't matter what data is used: autors or not.
Firures 4 and 5 use same data. Figure 4 unnecessary.
Where is the discussion of the above figures?
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) dynamics......, by Jae Hyung Lee et al.
I consider the subject taken as important, and the analytical methods used as appropriate. Still, I have much reservation as regards the manuscript. This is caused by the following and other faults:
Introduction: an insufficient review of existing literature with respect to TEP formation and half-life
Analytical:
- insufficient description of some analytical methods (POC, primary production)
- usage of just one TEP conversion factor throughout the study
- vacuum causing live cells damage
- quality control missing
Wrong statistics used- ANOVA should have been applied
English
- usage of unusual descriptors
- wrong syntax and grammar
- poor readability
- verification by an English speaker required
Results and discussion
The manuscript reads like a monitoring report. Little effort is given to explaining actual processes and dependencies influencing TEP- while such an attempt is taken (Ca2+, Mg2+) the relation is misinterpreted (shell farms cause Ca2+ concentrations to decrease in seawater; perhaps the relation Ca2+/Mg2+ should be explored.
Considering the above-listed faults I judge the manuscript unsuitable for publication, yet urge the authors to prepare and resubmit the faultless manuscript
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that prular should be used in the title:
Transparent exopolymer particle => Transparent exopolymer particles
TEP => TEPs
