Study of Radon Radiation in the Area of the Akchatau Polymetallic Mine, Republic of Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Where is section 4? After section "3. Results" comes section "5. Conclusions". Is this the final version of the article?

The research methodology needs to be written more clearly. Were several devices used? Were the measurements taken with these devices simultaneously or separately, and in what order were they used? How many measurements were taken in one room, and why so many? Were the measurements taken under the same conditions or different conditions? How were the measurement errors estimated? It is not clear how many measurements were taken in different seasons and how.

Statistical analysis (correlation, confidence intervals, or regression analysis) is missing from the results section. Mean, standard deviation, min/max ranges should be provided. Statistical justification of seasonality results (differences) is needed. Also, visual statistical analysis (graphs, charts) is required in the results section.
How was the average annual radon activity calculated? There are no formulas in the article.

A deeper discussion is missing. The article presents measurements but lacks interpretation in a wider context. There is no comparison with previous studies. Is the situation getting better or worse? Are the results in recent years unique or specific to the region?
What are the potential measurement errors? 

Lack of informative graphs in the results section (e.g., correlation graphs, distribution graphs, seasonal trends, etc.)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve the English language. The article contains incorrect sentence structures and word order errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author studied the radon radiation assessment of Akchatao village in Karaganda region. However, the following issues still need to be addressed.

1. The measurement theory of the instrument should be described in detail (including the addition of theoretical formulas).
2. What is the software for data analysis?
3. Line 243, 1533Bq/m3 unit superscript error should be changed to 1533Bq/m³.
4. The description of key parameters is too simple (the formula for calculating volume activity? Instrument calibration?) Major changes are recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the assessment of radon content in buildings located in the small village of Akchatay in the Karaganda region. About 140 buildings were examined and fairly high radon concentrations of about 19 kBq/m3 were obtained in some buildings. This study may be important in terms of providing data on the radiation situation in Central Asia.

At the same time, the article needs significant correction and additional materials.

 

Title. The title is too narrow, I suggest indicating the study of this settlement as indicative for assessing the danger of the geology of this area, including the anthropogenically modified environment?

Introduction.

1. A reference to the source of data in Table 1 and a reference to this table in the text of the manuscript are required.
2. More details on the known factors of the formation of radon-hazardous zones must be provided, supported by references. Do you indicate the geology, faults and permeability of the environment? I think in this context it would be appropriate to provide more details that would help to explain your geological situation, for example, why faults are dangerous, what data is available on them, how does radon move along them? How does the permeability of the cover deposits and the radium content in them determine the radon hazard of residential buildings? The geology of the area is also important, for example, granite outcrops with high uranium and thorium content, but you indicate this, but if they are covered by impermeable cover deposits, then the release of radon will be very difficult. This should be discussed in the introduction and other relevant parts of the paper. Also information on why radon is released into residential buildings.
3. The accumulation of radon in the lower floors is associated not only with its entry from the soil, but also with its weight - this should be corrected.
4. Provide links to previous studies on radon for your study area.
5. Detailed information on the geological structure of the Achkatau massif should be moved to the materials and methods section. The introduction may indicate the prerequisites for radioactivity, in your case, a granite massif. In the absence of data on cover deposits, their thickness and radium content, this conclusion would be hasty. If the depth is large enough, and advective transfer is difficult due to the absence of faults, then the source of radioactivity is either the interior decoration of the premises or cover deposits.
6. In the legend to the map in Figure 1, the text should be translated into English.
7. If you believe that the mine may be dangerous in terms of radon, then indicate the supposed mechanism, confirming it with references to the relevant studies. If this is an increase in the permeability of the geological environment, then the houses should be in the zone of influence of the workings, and the surface should experience subsidence. Moreover, this is in no way related to the raw materials processed by the mines (coal, salt, etc.). Such situations are known in Poland, Russia, Germany, China and other countries, and are associated, in general, with underground work and the collapse of the strata covering the mine. If this is the removal into the atmosphere from adits, then such influence is most likely minimal due to the strong dilution of radon exhalations by atmospheric air.
8. Meteorological factors are important, as is the architecture of buildings, and this also needs to be supported by references to relevant works.
9. It is necessary to formulate the purpose of the study more clearly, which will be supported by the relevance of your work.
   Materials and methods
10. Provide more detailed information about the gamma spectrometer, beta spectrometers and other equipment. What is the procedure for assessing the radioactivity of natural and anthropogenic materials in your work. Specify the detection limits and errors of the devices and methods. Provide more details on the EEVA and AAVA measurements.
11. What is the "trend line coefficient"?
12. Why were EEVA measured by one equipment and RVA by another?
13. Provide formulas for calculating the annual dose load.
14. A map is needed indicating the study points and potential radon hazard factors.
15. It is necessary to disclose all factors of the geological structure that can predetermine high radon levels in residential buildings.
16. Were repeated/control measurements carried out for internal control?
17. What is AAVA?

 

Results

1. Line 185-191. Relevant to the introduction, move it there according to the meaning.
2. There are no references to lines 194-199, who conducted these studies?
3. In Figure 3, the legend needs to be translated. Its resolution also needs to be improved.
4. In Figure 3, the Karaganda region and the Achkatau massif are not visible. There is no scale and explanation of all the designations - this needs to be corrected.
5. It would be appropriate to indicate the geology and its factors that can determine the radon level in residential buildings in Figure 4. Translation of all map attributes is necessary. What interpolation method was chosen and for what reason? Add geology for better visibility of potential radon emission factors. Also, if possible, add data on underworked areas.
6. There is no data on differences in summer and winter radon concentrations in houses, add this information.
7. How was the conversion of AAVA to EEVA performed?
8. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between the materials obtained in this study and those taken from previous works. Since this is difficult to isolate now.

 

Discussion.

1. The paper has limitations related to the research methods, limited sample, these need to be added and discussed.
2. There is not enough depth in the discussion of the results obtained with references to confirmatory studies.

 

Overall, the article requires editing of the English language.

The article can be re-reviewed only after serious corrections have been made.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Some figures or parts of them are not translated into English.
2. In general, the article contains inaccuracies in the translation of terminology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript shows improvement. Many of the previously raised comments have been addressed, and the information has been supplemented and clarified. However, the results section still appears to be insufficiently developed. I recommend expanding this part following the earlier comments to ensure that the study’s findings are more clearly substantiated and easier to interpret.

Author Response

Thanks for your effort. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's reply was very clear and has been revised in the paper.

Author Response

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

unfortunately, my numerous comments were taken into account only by 10-20%. Some additional (new) fragments of the text are surprisingly inadequate. For example, line 27 (0.6 mSv/hour), or line 85 (Radon has a high density (9.73 g/l under normal conditions)), or line 321 (with an incorrect formula at least in terms of dimensions), and other additions to the text.

The level of competence of the authors in the scope is not yet sufficient for publication in a reputable scientific journal. The reviewer recommends studying the relevant literature. The reviewer also recommends that the authors (after a thorough study of the relevant literature) further focus on clearly expressing the results of their research, the design of which should be rational (have a clear and justified goal).

 

 

Author Response

Thanks for your effort. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job of correcting the manuscript, they took into account most of the comments and recommendations of the reviewer. In its current form, the article looks better.

I have several recommendations for the authors:
1. Add mining to the keywords.
2. The numbering of references to sources of literature is broken, this needs to be corrected (for example, source 11, 12 is missing from the text). Check the sequence of references.
3. The role of the polymetallic mine in the work is not sufficiently noted, especially in the results and discussion. In the introduction, you provided several references, but there are modern sources for the last 5 years in this problematic scientific area and there is a classic work by Kemsky in Germany. I think it would be appropriate to disclose the mechanism in more detail here, perhaps to mark the areas of undermining. In Figure 4, a mine is indicated, but the peak values ​​in residential buildings are at a great distance from it. There is reason to believe that it does not play a role, or the undermining is located under residential buildings. Check this. Also indicate that the composition of the rocks does not have a significant effect, for example, such a problem exists in Solikamsk (salt), Upper Silesia, Donbass, Kuzbass and other coal basins. Your work complements these results with a polymetallic mine and this is important!
4. Specify the depth of development, since there is data from coal mining regions of Poland, China and Russia that when the mine is located in near-surface conditions, the role of technogenic permeability increases, compared to deep mines.
5. Suggestion on lines 186-188. (Granite is radioactive because it contains long-lived natural radioactive isotopes: U238, U235, Th232, K40, as well as almost all of their decay products, including radon, accumulated since the formation of granite.). It should be corrected, since radon does not accumulate from the moment of formation, but enters into secular equilibrium after some time. Clarification is required here.
6. Specify the age of fault structures. There is evidence that ancient faults (often inactive at present) are not transport channels for radon. If there is evidence of their tectonic activity, then specify this. This will confirm your conclusions in the work.
7. Specify the following data for the equipment: name, country, city. Not all readers know about this equipment. Specify the measurement error for the Alfarad and Kamera-01 devices.
8. Sentence on lines 339-340 (For loose soils, the upper limit of the range of Ra226 activity is 40 Bq/kg, i.e. the radon flux density from the surface will not exceed the standard of 80 mBq/(m2×s). On what basis is this conclusion made?
9. Add to the conclusions that cover deposits have low concentrations of radium. Thus, the main sources of radon are faults, igneous rocks, ore minerals and increased permeability associated with the mine.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf