Assessment of Natural Radioactivity and Trace Element Composition of Coals and Ash and Slag Waste in Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors must develop chapter 2, Materials and Method.
The authors must complete with 10 bibliographic references in the field of research from the last 3 years.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The authors must develop chapter 2, Materials and Method.
Response and Revisions:
The materials and methods section is available in the submitted article, the section has been supplemented with Figure 1, X-ray fluorescence spectrometer and gamma spintillation spectrometer markings.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The authors must complete with 10 bibliographic references in the field of research from the last 3 years.
Response and Revisions:
The authors provided more than 10 references on the research topic in the last three years and the list of bibliographic references has been expanded to 35.
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable recommendations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presented by the authors is devoted to the study of the composition and radiation activity of the source coal and its combustion waste from the point of view of possible environmental pollution. The work is certainly relevant, and its results are important for improving the environmental status.
Despite the importance of the work done, there are a number of inaccuracies and weaknesses that need to be corrected before the work can be recommended for publication.
Title: "... composition of coals and ash and slag waste ..." seems like too many sequental "ands". So, I propose to adjust the title within the limits of the presented meaning so as to avoid such wording.
Almost the entire text is divided into paragraphs consisting of 1-2 or 3 sentences. It looks strange and creates the illusion of presenting the work with fragments of thoughts, which is actually not the case. I propose to combine the sentences into single semantic blocks.
In the text of the entire work, it is necessary to systematize the indication of all radioisotopes so that it is unambiguous and corresponds to the generally accepted form of notation, for example, for uranium: uranium-238 or 238U (not U238 and potassium-40, located nearby in the text).
Figure 1 and Figure 2: axes should have proper naming, indicating the correct name of the displayed parameter, including the units of measurement. Naming "coal sample spectrum" do not show anything spectral. At the same time, some signals near 234Th exceed the signal from 226Ra in intensity, which is not explained in any way in the text.
Line 211, Table 1: The values are given without specifying a confidence interval or specifying a measurement error. One can only guess that it is not possible to measure values below 23 for potassium, e.g.
Line 212, Table 2 (named as Table 1): some values differ by more than 2 times. Presenting the data as an average value with a range of deviation will be much clearer to readers.
Line 224, Table 3: 3rd column (Ad, %) needs some explanations - what are these values, what do they mean?
line 253, 255, 262, 331: the correct symbol for sievert is Sv
Line 296, Table 4 (named as Table 3): The different units of measurement listed in column 3 are not explained, and their difference between each other only confuses and does not provide an understanding of the purposes of such a different presentation of data. If it is clear from "μg/g" what they relate to, then "%" raise questions about what they are calculated
References to literature are presented in different formats. At least some have DOI references, and some don't. Reference 28 has the superfluous closing bracket
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Title: "... composition of coals and ash and slag waste ..." seems like too many sequental "ands". So, I propose to adjust the title within the limits of the presented meaning so as to avoid such wording.
Response and Revisions:
The title of the article has been corrected ("and" removed).
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Almost the entire text is divided into paragraphs consisting of 1-2 or 3 sentences. It looks strange and creates the illusion of presenting the work with fragments of thoughts, which is actually not the case. I propose to combine the sentences into single semantic blocks.
Response and Revisions:
A number of sentences in the text of the article have been combined into single semantic blocks.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: In the text of the entire work, it is necessary to systematize the indication of all radioisotopes so that it is unambiguous and corresponds to the generally accepted form of notation, for example, for uranium: uranium-238 or 238U (not U238 and potassium-40, located nearby in the text).
Response and Revisions:
The designations of radioisotopes have been systematized throughout the article.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Figure 1 and Figure 2: axes should have proper naming, indicating the correct name of the displayed parameter, including the units of measurement. Naming "coal sample spectrum" do not show anything spectral. At the same time, some signals near 234Th exceed the signal from 226Ra in intensity, which is not explained in any way in the text.
Response and Revisions:
Figures 2 and 3. In the energy spectra of natural gamma radiation, to the left of the Th234 gamma line, there are visible gamma lines: decay products of U238 (U234 - 53 keV; Pb210 - 46.5 keV) and decay products of Th232 (Bi212 - 40 keV; Th232 - 60 keV). These gamma lines are not used in assessing specific activities of radionuclides.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 211, Table 1: The values are given without specifying a confidence interval or specifying a measurement error. One can only guess that it is not possible to measure values below 23 for potassium, e.g.
Response and Revisions:
Line 209. Table 1, the value of K40 < 23 raises a question for the reviewer. This value is in the region of the sensitivity threshold of the gamma spectrometric method. The relative error is 33%.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 212, Table 2 (named as Table 1): some values differ by more than 2 times. Presenting the data as an average value with a range of deviation will be much clearer to readers.
Response and Revisions:
Line 210. Table 2. Average values of radionuclides and a note in the Table have been added. Note: the numerator indicates the range of values; in the denominator there is the average value.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 224, Table 3: 3rd column (Ad, %) needs some explanations - what are these values, what do they mean?
Response and Revisions:
Line 227, in Table 3, a note was added: Ad - ash content of coal, %.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: line 253, 255, 262, 331: the correct symbol for sievert is Sv
Response and Revisions:
Line 253, 255, 262, 331, the symbol has been corrected from m3B to mSv.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 296, Table 4 (named as Table 3): The different units of measurement listed in column 3 are not explained, and their difference between each other only confuses and does not provide an understanding of the purposes of such a different presentation of data. If it is clear from "μg/g" what they relate to, then "%" raise questions about what they are calculated
Response and Revisions:
Line 296. The method of calculating the concentration of elements by the X-ray fluorescence method is based on the determination of macrocomponents in %, and microcomponents in μg/g.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: References to literature are presented in different formats. At least some have DOI references, and some don't. Reference 28 has the superfluous closing bracket
Response and Revisions:
The list of references has been brought to a single format.
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY AND TRACE ELEMENT COMPOSITION OF COALS AND ASH AND SLAG WASTE IN KAZAKHSTAN” by Yuriy Pak, Dmitriy Pak et al is devoted to the systematization of research data on the natural radioactivity of fossil coals and ash and slag waste from coal power engineering in the context of radioecological safety. Kazakhstan is one of the ten largest coal producers in the world. The problem of natural radioactivity of coals in Kazakhstan and the distribution of individual radionuclides has been poorly studied. At the same time, there are local areas of the Shubarkol and Maikube coal deposits with increased radioactivity. The radiation hazard of coal power engineering is associated with pollution of the atmosphere and environment by combustion waste: fly ash emitted with flue gases and ash and slag waste. Thus, this study is important and relevant for drawing attention to the environmental problems of Central Asia. The article can be published in the Atmosphere journal after minor changes.
Line 142 The phrase "samples of about 1 kg with a size of 3 mm were analyzed" should be clarified. Perhaps the authors should provide photos of the analyzed samples. The same is not clear for the samples "finely ground samples of -0.1 mm"
Line 160. Provide the name and brand of the "X-ray fluorescence spectrometer based on an X-ray tube" and the scintillation gamma spectrometer.
Figures 1 and 2. The axes are not labeled.
Table 1. What is ASW? If this is acceptable, then reference values ​​can be added to the tables.
Table 2 has an incorrect caption (Table 1). Why were only two samples used for instrumental neutron-activation analysis? Were the other samples not analyzed? Or did they show a negative result? Check the text.
Table 3. The reviewer does not understand what column 3 (Ad, %) means.
Line 255. Is m3B the correct designation?
Figure 5. Axes are not labeled.
Make the list of references in a single format.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 142 The phrase "samples of about 1 kg with a size of 3 mm were analyzed" should be clarified. Perhaps the authors should provide photos of the analyzed samples. The same is not clear for the samples "finely ground samples of -0.1 mm"
Response and Revisions:
Line 139. Section Materials and Methods: Figure 1 has been added. Marinelli vessel and the coal sample under study (the Figure shows the sample under study by the gamma spectrometric method, weight is 1 kg, class size is -3 mm).
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 160. Provide the name and brand of the "X-ray fluorescence spectrometer based on an X-ray tube" and the scintillation gamma spectrometer.
Response and Revisions:
Line 156, 163. The brand of the X-ray fluorescence spectrometer, its software, and the name of the scintillation gamma spectrometer have been added.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Figures 1 and 2. The axes are not labeled.
Response and Revisions:
Figures 1 and 2 have become Figures 2 and 3, since Figure 1 has been added, the names of the axes have been added in these Figures, and the name of the Figure has been changed.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Table 1. What is ASW? If this is acceptable, then reference values can be added to the tables.
Response and Revisions:
ASW is ash and slag waste, and has been deciphered in Table 1 and in the text.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Table 2 has an incorrect caption (Table 1). Why were only two samples used for instrumental neutron-activation analysis? Were the other samples not analyzed? Or did they show a negative result? Check the text.
Response and Revisions:
A change has been made in the numbering of the Tables. Table 2. The reviewer's opinion that only two samples have been analyzed is erroneous, because the Table indicates the number of samples analyzed by instrumental neutron activation analysis, there are twenty of them.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Table 3. The reviewer does not understand what column 3 (Ad, %) means.
Response and Revisions:
A note has been added to Table 3 (Ad is the ash content of coal, %).
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Line 255. Is m3B the correct designation?
Response and Revisions:
the symbol has been corrected from m3 to mSv (Line 258)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Figure 5. Axes are not labeled.
Response and Revisions:
In Figure 6, markings have been added to the X-axis for the enrichment factors of microelements, and to the Y-axis for microelements.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Make the list of references in a single format.
Response and Revisions:
The list of references has been brought to a single format and the list of bibliographic references has been expanded to 35
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered all these questions and made changes to the text of the paper. There is only a small technical discrepancy left in the mention of Figure 1 on line 135, which will definitely be fixed at the production stage.
I can recommend the work for publication.
