Review Reports
by
- Huaibin Wei 1,
- Yao Wang 2 and
- Ran Zeng 5
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Przemysław Niedzielski Reviewer 2: Maria Toscanesi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article seems interesting and worth publishing. However, I would like to point out a few problems that should be clarified. I hope that my suggestions will help to increase the value of the article.
Most importantly, authors should highlight the elements of scientific novelty. Based on the analysis of the literature, they should clearly indicate what elements of research are new and why they should to be published.
The definition of heavy metals is not clear and is defined differently in the literature. Authors should indicate what I mean by this statement. Exemplary arsenic is not metallic element.
The environmental nature of the journal requires high-quality research documentation. Although the authors refer to the literature, the analytical procedures should be described in detail. The instrumental parameters of the measurements should be provided.
To document the results, the authors should provide validation of analytical procedures and provide metrological parameters describing the measurements.
It is necessary to include the results of analyses of certified reference materials.
Only documenting the measurement results allows for their discussion in the environmental context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present work deals with the determination of metals in sediments and ecological risk assessment. The work is very interesting and the data is well elaborated, the authors are advised the following:
- section 1.2 does not indicate the preliminary treatments of the sample, such as dry residue etc. Were measurements with references made to evaluate precision and accuracy?
- in section 1.4 why didn't the authors also determine the enrichment factor (EF) to evaluate the accumulation of the measured metals? It would be interesting and useful for a better assessment of the state of pollution.
It is recommended to improve the quality of the images especially of the maps (they should be bigger for better understanding)
It is advisable to insert a table with the data obtained from all the sediment samples and the references used for the calculation of the indices. It would also be advisable to indicate references in terms of maximum limit values established by law or present in the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors put a lot of effort into improving the work. The text can be published in its current form.