Evaluation of Water Contamination Caused by Cemeteries in Central Ecuador—A Warning for the Authorities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have presented interesting and important topic within the subject of anthropogenic influence on the surface water and their protection in urban areas.

However, there are some things that need attention and corrections by the authors.

In the introduction - the aim of the research is in the middle of the text and there is a part which in my opinion belongs in the M&M. The aim of the research should be stated clearly. Also, here begins the unclear explanation of the unsuitable, suitable, ...  area, cemetery, .... which is continuing throughout the MS. It should be clearly explained in one section what categories have been given before and which are valid now and always use the same term. The subtitle is not necessary. References are not written correctly - please check the instructions for authors (for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].). Also, if you use an author in the sentence, you can't just put the bracket with the number, use the last name of the author and then put the brackets: e.g. Peters [1] studied .....   Other comments are given in the text.

In M&M, I did not fully understand what was sampled - river, stream, some reservoir, "sewage" pipe line, .... how far upstream, how far downstream. On the map it is evident where are the cemeteries, but not what kind of water bodies is near. Some photos would be nice at least as supplementary files. What is "water matrix"? Other comments are given in the text.

There are some parts of the text which don't belong in the Results section - I marked it in ms. In this section and in the Discussion I had a feeling that authors were more concerned which test they used (or why ANOVA wasn't applied), then what was the result on the analysis. One proper explanation in M&M is enough, in continuing sections there is no need to repeat it. The titles of the figures and tables need to be more informative. Discussion needs to be more supportive and explanatory - in concordance to the aim of the research. Other comments are given in the text.

Did you do any analysis of water testing for those chemicals which you listed as important components of embalming fluids or any other analyses of environmental parameters?

Please check the instructions for authors - for list of references and authors contributions.

Thank you.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Evaluation of water contamination caused by cemeteries in Central Ecuador – A warning for the authorities”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

1. In the introduction - the aim of the research is in the middle of the text
2. Well, seen it with your eyes its true, we have to admit this. The observation has been accepted and addressed, so that the predominant objective was placed at the end of the introduction, being stated much better and improved than the previous version.

 

2. There is a part which in my opinion belongs in the M&M. The aim of the research should be stated clearly. Also, here begins the unclear explanation of the unsuitable, suitable, ...  area, cemetery, .... which is continuing throughout the MS. It should be clearly explained in one section what categories have been given before and which are valid now and always use the same term. The subtitle is not necessary.
3. Yes indeed. The introductory part has been restructured and all changes have been highlighted in yellow.

 

3. References are not written correctly - please check the instructions for authors (for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].). Also, if you use an author in the sentence, you can't just put the bracket with the number, use the last name of the author and then put the brackets: e.g., Peters [1] studied.
4. Correct, our mistake, all corrected.

 

4. Other comments are given in the text.
5. The comment is accepted and very welcome. Most of the comments in the document have been addressed and corrected, as also several sections have been restructured.

 

5. In M&M, I did not fully understand what was sampled - river, stream, some reservoir, "sewage" pipe line, .... how far upstream, how far downstream. On the map it is evident where are the cemeteries, but not what kind of water bodies is near. Some photos would be nice at least as supplementary files. What is "water matrix"? Other comments are given in the text.
6. Absolutely true. What has been sampled, were rivers. It is clarified that in general the samples were taken upstream and downstream of the cemetery at a distance of about 500 m. There are cemeteries where this distance could not be met due to the physical impossibility of entering the rivers. This is clarified in the text within the corresponding lines.

Regarding the location of the rivers, Figure 1 was changed, locating the rivers where the samples were taken.

The requested photos are attached below:

 

The words “water matrix” refers to the water resource. However, in the text it was changed to the word “river “or “water resource”.

 

6. There are some parts of the text which don't belong in the Results section - I marked it in ms. In this section.
7. Your observation is very welcome. The entire comments realized in the document have been corrected and the “results” section has been restructured, as you will be able to observe when re-reading the manuscript.

 

7. In the Discussion I had a feeling that authors were more concerned which test they used (or why ANOVA wasn't applied), then what was the result on the analysis. One proper explanation in M&M is enough, in continuing sections there is no need to repeat it.
8. Correct, therefore all comments posted in the document have been corrected and the “discussion” section has been restructured.

 

8. The titles of the figures and tables need to be more informative.
9. Good point. All titles and subtitles of figures and tables have been improved, respecting the content of their information.

 

9. Discussion needs to be more supportive and explanatory - in concordance to the aim of the research. Other comments are given in the text.
10. We took this recommendation very seriously, as the discussion part was reworded in a more explanatory and referenced manner. Paragraphs explaining the statistical part were removed and summarized in one paragraph. The entire discussion was restructured.

 

10. Did you do any analysis of water testing for those chemicals which you listed as important components of embalming fluids or any other analyses of environmental parameters?
11. No, we didn’t, as the objective of the research has been to analyze only the parameters set out in the manuscript, i.e. DO, BOD₅, COD, pH, PO₄, EC, NO₃ etc., and no other types of substances.

 

11. Please check the instructions for authors - for list of references and authors contributions.
12. Thank you, a needed observation. We. the authors reviewed the instructions for preparing the reference list and improved the respective contributions.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue presented by the authors related to the potential threat to the quality of surface waters from point sources such as cemeteries is interesting. However, there is a lack of consistency between the title and the content. Please consider a different title. The introduction also requires improvement. Although the informations and references to literature are correct, the whole is not coherent and some content is repeated. A paragraph about article aim should be at the end.

The methodology is described quite well, but it should be clearly emphasized why out of the 70 analyzed cemeteries mentioned at the beginning, the authors selected only 10 for analysis. It was also not indicated at what distances from the cemeteries the upper and lower water collection points were selected, or whether the upper one, which is to be the reference point, is free from the influence of the cemetery and other sources of contaminants (something about this was mentioned in the discussion, but not clearly).

Are the data presented in Table 2 single collection data or averages from several collections in the analyzed periods? The authors indicate that the values ​​in bold correspond to values ​​that are exceeded in relation to the requirements given in Table 1. Unfortunately, this is not always correctly marked. This table also shows that already above the cemeteries in several cases the water quality was inadequate, so how can we study how the cemetery affected the deterioration of water quality?

Table 4 presents mean values ​​from the dry period from all the analyzed points in the vicinity of cemeteries. Only poorly located cemeteries had an impact on the deterioration of water quality. Using all the results flattens the relationship. Statistically, it can be stated that cemeteries do not have an impact on water quality, and in the discussion the authors themselves mention that they do.

Table 5 confirms that there is a relationship between the cemetery category and water quality. Here again, the quality of water in the river itself may be important. To determine the impact of the cemetery, the increase in the parameter value at point P in relation to point U would be more important.

The influence on BOD5 was indicated, in my opinion there is also a relationship between COD. The best indicator seems to be EC.

The size of the figures also needs to be improved. Figure 2 is a bit too big, and Figure 3 has too small fonts for the descriptions. Please also consider whether it would be beneficial to combine the results and discussion sections.

Detailed comments:

- please check punctuation in lines 91,151, 226, 243, 267, 441

- equation (1) - a7

- the same publication is cited twice, reference no. 20 and 22

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Evaluation of water contamination caused by cemeteries in Central Ecuador – A warning for the authorities”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

1. There is a lack of consistency between the title and the content. Please consider a different title.
2. Very good and recommendable point. The title of our manuscript as submitted, has been: “Determination of water contamination due to cemeteries in Central Ecuador – A call for concern from the authorities”, which is now changed to “Evaluation of water contamination caused by cemeteries in Central Ecuador – A warning for the authorities”

 

2. The introduction also requires improvement. Although the information and references to literature are correct, the whole is not coherent and some content is repeated. A paragraph about article aim should be at the end.
3. Absolutely true. The introductory part has been restructured and all changes have been highlighted in yellow.

 

3. The methodology is described quite well, but it should be clearly emphasized why out of the 70 analyzed cemeteries mentioned at the beginning, the authors selected only 10 for analysis.
4. Correct. The wording of the methodology was improved. It was better explained that, since the universe consisted of 70 cemeteries and after applying the methodology described to select the sample, it was calculated that the number of cemeteries sampled was 10.
5. It was also not indicated at what distances from the cemeteries the upper and lower water collection points were selected, or whether the upper one, which is to be the reference point, is free from the influence of the cemetery and other sources of contaminants (something about this was mentioned in the discussion, but not clearly).
6. The observation is more than welcome. It is clarified that in general the samples were taken upstream and downstream of the cemetery at about a distance of some 500 m. There are cemeteries where this distance could not be met due to the physical impossibility of accessing the rivers. This is clarified in the text within the corresponding lines.
7. Are the data presented in Table 2 single collection data or averages from several collections in the analyzed periods? 
8. The data presented in Table 2 correspond to a single collection (dry season) in all the sampling cemeteries (10), at three different points: blanc (U), parallel (P) and after (D) the cemetery, which are located 500 m from the reference point (P).

 

6. The authors indicate that the values in bold correspond to values that are exceeded in relation to the requirements given in Table 1. Unfortunately, this is not always correctly marked. This table also shows that already above the cemeteries in several cases the water quality was inadequate, so how can we study how the cemetery affected the deterioration of water quality?
7. Indeed, Table 2 shows several values that exceed the limits established by the EPA (Table 1). It also indicates that in several cases the water is already contaminated prior reaching the cemetery. However, it can be observed that there is a contribution from the cemetery that mostly causes the values to increase in the section parallel to and after the cemetery, and that in any case they are still outside the norm. Therefore, they do not meet the minimum values to guarantee the water quality of the river near the cemetery under study according to its respective use.

The difference between the contamination detected in the target and that detected in the area parallel to the cemetery constitutes the impact of the cemetery under study on water quality. In addition, it must be considered that the contamination is not punctual, it is a diffuse contamination, so in several cases an increase is observed. Another factor that affected the values has been dilution. However, in all cases the influence of the cemetery on water contamination in the study parameters is observed.

7. Table 4 presents mean values from the dry period from all the analyzed points in the vicinity of cemeteries. Only poorly located cemeteries had an impact on the deterioration of water quality. Using all the results flattens the relationship. Statistically, it can be stated that cemeteries do not have an impact on water quality, and in the discussion the authors themselves mention that they do.
8. Accepted. In the study presented, the first statistical analysis was to establish whether or not there was a significant difference between periods by means of an ANOVA analysis. To do this, it was verified that the data met the characteristics of homoscedasticity and normality, which lacked to occur. Therefore, the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test was applied, which determined that statistically there was no significant difference between periods. Based on that, the environmental criterion was applied that pollutants are more concentrated in the dry season and therefore must be compared with the EPA regulations. Subsequently, all analyses were conducted in the dry season.

Table 4 lists the data obtained in different segments involving all categories during the dry season. Statistically there is no difference, and knowing that the statistically significant difference does not always imply that numerically the difference is large or important, it must be interpreted according to the context of the study and considering factors such as sample size. Therefore, it was decided to compare it with the EPA Environmental Standard. In the discussion, it was better worded so that what was explained previously may be understood to avoid the apparent contradiction.

W the authors emphasize that only cemeteries classified in the UNSUITABLE category have problems with water quality, meaning, there is contamination. This is consistent given that the category mentioned by definition has a high probability of contamination in the water resource, which is confirmed by the analyses realized during this research.

8. Table 5 confirms that there is a relationship between the cemetery category and water quality. Here again, the quality of water in the river itself may be important. To determine the impact of the cemetery, the increase in the parameter value at point P in relation to point U would be more important.
9. Point P is parallel to the cemetery, which gives a clear idea of the contamination of the water resource that a cemetery could contribute. However, taking the sample at point D and analyzing it allows to know the real impact on water quality, given that in many cases the river water is used downstream for irrigation and agriculture. The analyzed parameters are degradable substances and not conservative ones (degradation over time and distance).
10. The influence on BOD₅ was indicated, in my opinion there is also a relationship between COD. The best indicator seems to be EC.
11. Good catch. There is indeed a direct relationship between BOD₅ and COD. BOD₅ is part of COD, therefore COD will always be higher and this relationship is indicated in Table 5. The authors are very clear about this given relationship.

As for the EC, it is not a good indicator for all the cemeteries that are part of the sampling because in several of them there is no reference value given that they are located in Environmental Water. Therefore, other parameters related to the degradation of organic matter such as COD and BOD₅.

10. The size of the figures also needs to be improved. Figure 2 is a bit too big, and Figure 3 has too small fonts for the descriptions. 
11. Good. Figures 2 and 3 have been fixed in dimension and fonts.
12. Please also consider whether it would be beneficial to combine the results and discussion sections.
13. R. The Results and Discussion sections have not been merged, but the results and discussion have been restructured as requested by the expert peer reviewers.
14. Please check punctuation in lines 91,151, 226, 243, 267, 441
15. Good point, our mistake(s). The entire manuscript was reviewed to avoid possible punctuation omissions.
16. Equation (1) - a7
17. Correct. Subscript 7 was placed.
18. The same publication is cited twice, reference no. 20 and 22
19. Absolutely correct, our mistake again. Duplicate references were deleted and the entire manuscript was reviewed to avoid possible duplications of references.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled “A critical review about the determination of water contamination due to cemeteries – a case study of Central Ecuador”, the authors investigate the potential for cemeteries to act as sources of water contamination. Particularly, the study focuses on analyzing physicochemical parameters in water sources near twelve cemeteries in Central Ecuador during both dry and rainy periods. The goal is to assess the levels of contamination and compare these findings with EPA regulations, ultimately suggesting global criteria for the optimal placement of cemeteries.

The research has several key limitations. Firstly, it is geographically restricted to a specific region in central Ecuador, which limits its ability to provide a broader national or global perspective. Additionally, the study was conducted over a short period, which might not capture seasonal variations or long-term trends in contamination. Another important issue is the lack of assessment of the potential health impacts of the identified contaminants. This omission reduces the practical significance of the findings in terms of public health. However, the study is particularly interesting and relevant, as the authors rightly point out, there is a lack of suitability criteria and appropriate policies to guide the implementation of cemeteries. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revisions. These revisions will help enhance the study’s comprehensiveness, relevance, and impact, ensuring it provides valuable insights and practical recommendations for managing cemetery-related water contamination.

 

In the Materials and methods Section, I suggest to add more information about the quality control.

 

References section: According to guidelines for Authors “References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work: for example 1) Journal Articles: 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range. Therefore, I suggest to correct references in the References Section and in the text. Additionally, in the text, it is necessary to specify the authors of the cited references. For example: at Lines 73-74, the sentence “In turn, [21] analyzed the physicochemical parameters in soil and water in the cemeteries considered critical within the categorization set out by [22], ...” it should be rewritten as “In turn, Flores Gómez analyzed the physicochemical parameters in soil and water in the cemeteries considered critical within the categorization set out by Crisanto-Perrazo [21, 22], ...”.

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Evaluation of water contamination caused by cemeteries in Central Ecuador – A warning for the authorities”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

1. The research has several key limitations. Firstly, it is geographically restricted to a specific region in central Ecuador, which limits its ability to provide a broader national or global perspective.
2. Unfortunately, we have to disagree in this point. Although it is true that the sampling has been realized in central Ecuador, it is no less true that this area is very representative of various climates, altitude, soils, and hydrology of various areas of the world. For example, Rumiñahui is a canton located at 2,550 meters above sea level with a temperature that fluctuates between 11°C and 22°C, while the Quito canton, the location of the Nanegal cemetery, is at 800 meters above sea level with a temperature that fluctuates between 11°C and 28°C degrees.

Therefore, there is a wide spectrum of study in the research that will allow inferring responses in other latitudes. However, the RECOMMENDATIONS section was increased in the study, in which it is suggested to expand the studies to other regions, climates, and parameters.

 

 

2. Additionally, the study was conducted over a short period, which might not capture seasonal variations or long-term trends in contamination.
3. The study was performed over a year during two rainy and dry seasons. This provided a fairly accurate idea of the behavior of pollution caused by cemeteries. The current study is the continuation of other studies that have been conducted in the same (wide) area and all with the same trend in the results.

 

3. Another important issue is the lack of assessment of the potential health impacts of the identified contaminants. This omission reduces the practical significance of the findings in terms of public health.
4. The suggestion cannot be accepted. The predominant objective has been to determine whether there is contamination in the water due to cemeteries. However, the potential impact on health that this contamination could have has been included in the recommendations section.

 

4. However, the study is particularly interesting and relevant, as the authors rightly point out, there is a lack of suitability criteria and appropriate policies to guide the implementation of cemeteries.
5. The suitability criteria were the starting point of this study. The areas for the establishment of cemeteries were classified as Not suitable, Slightly suitable, Moderately suitable, Very suitable and Completely suitable. In the Recommendations section, a call to the authorities is placed to act measures on this particular issue, such as proposals for policies and regulations that allow for the regulation and management of the ideal location of cemeteries, considering the possible effects that they may generate for the surrounding population. These policies and regulations could be extended to manage landfills and wastewater treatment plants.

 

5. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revisions. These revisions will help enhance the study’s comprehensiveness, relevance, and impact, ensuring it provides valuable insights and practical recommendations for managing cemetery-related water contamination.
6. We are very thankful to the reviewing expert for all his/her contributions that have improved and enhanced our manuscript.

 

6. In the Materials and methods Section, I suggest to add more information about the quality control.
7. The suggestion has not been fully not understood. It refers to the quality control carried out on the river or to the quality control that the research group carried out on the samples or those that the laboratory takes to guarantee the results? We didn’t catch the recommendation.

 

7. References section: According to guidelines for Authors “References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work: for example, 1) Journal Articles: 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range. Therefore, I suggest to correct references in the References Section and in the text. Additionally, in the text, it is necessary to specify the authors of the cited references. For example: at Lines 73-74, the sentence “In turn, [21] analyzed the physicochemical parameters in soil and water in the cemeteries considered critical within the categorization set out by [22], ...” it should be rewritten as “In turn, Flores Gómez analyzed the physicochemical parameters in soil and water in the cemeteries considered critical within the categorization set out by Crisanto-Perrazo [21, 22], ...”.
8. Good catch. All references were reviewed and corrected.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors