Geospatial Visualization and Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Rice Soil of a Newly Developed Industrial Zone in Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the readers, however, a minor revision should be taken before publication.

1.       Materials and methods: The formula should be on one line for easy viewing. Thus equation 2 would be better modified.

2.       Author should add some discussion about remediation of heavy metals in soils by reference some reviews, such as:

[1] Guo, S. Y., Xiao, C. Q., Zhou, N., Chi, R. A. Speciation, toxicity, microbial remediation and phytoremediation of soil chromium contamination. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2021, 19: 1413–1431.

[2] Zheng, Y. T., Xiao, C. Q., Chi, R. A. Remediation of soil cadmium pollution by biomineralization using microbial‑induced precipitation: a review. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2021, 37: 208.

3.       Pictures:

①　The pictures in the paper were not clear, especially the marking of sampling points in Figure 1.

②　The clarity of Figure 3 and Figure 4 was a little low.

4.       Authors should check the paper carefully, and there were lots of typing mistakes.

①　The percent sign was not used uniformly in this paper, for example, “143.46% and 142.00%” and “148.92 and 142.74%” in the results.

②　The format of the unit of measurement was wrong and parentheses were redundant or incomplete, e.g “The highest percent increase of Cu was observed in RD industry (444.29%) followed by CK (194.75%), SL (114.30%) and MIX (106.58%) industries, respectively as compared with their background concentration (1.19, 3.94, 6.02 and 3.92 mgKg^-1 (Figure 2f).”

③　The reserved position behind the decimal point was inconsistent, for example, “ CK (277.0%), SL (172.86%) and RD (161%)”.

5.       References: The DOI of some references were missing. What’s more, the DOI format was also inconsistent, with links and serial numbers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Throughout the article there is the factual error of comparing data obtained with different soil extractants. A strong extractant extracts one amount and a weak extractant another. These cannot be analysed and explained in a table. The only place where this error can be noticed is in subsection 2.3, where there are not very relevant literature citations. Why is the original Lindsay and Norvel 1978 article not cited?  
And in the presentation of the results, the data obtained with different extractants are handled together, which leads to a series of incorrect conclusions. Such as the mention of element concentrations or the order of sampling sites.
It is also necessary to give the contamination categories per extractant and per element.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes suggested in the review have been corrected, therefore I consider that the manuscript has been improved enough to justify its publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

You already treat the data obtained with two different extraction agents together in the abstract without mentioning this. Why don't they already specify in this chapter which extractant the data is valid for. This should already be mentioned in the keywords or between them. Handling the previously objected element concentrations together is also not good professionally for the correlation calculation. We do not usually treat the data obtained with different extraction agents together, as they have different meanings. When comparing both places and elements, you only give one order, not per extractant.

It is surprising that you did not write anything in response about the joint handling of the data with the two extractants.

It is not enough to list even more supporters.

You didn't answer my questions.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and corrections. Please see the attachment for detail responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Please write the DTPA abbreviation in capital letters, see line 591.

Rewiev the use of brackets in line 219 and 228.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments, corrections, and suggestions. The corrections have been made in the revised version of the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf