Natural Radionuclide Concentrations by γ-Ray Spectrometry in Granitic Rocks of the Sol Hamed Area, Southeastern Desert of Egypt, and Their Radiological Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is of great significance from a radiological point of view by presenting the radioactive concentration of minerals obtained from certain areas of Egypt that can be used as building materials. In particular, correlation analysis through various statistical approaches can be useful as a reference in related fields. I would like to comment on several issues to be corrected for publication in this journal.
Minor issues
- Line 110
Please properly label the subscripts and correctly revise the radionuclide that emits 2614 keV gamma-ray energy.
- 214Bi → 214Bi
- 2614 keV from 228Ac → 2614 keV from 208Tl
- Line 271
Please check the spelling of rU, rTh, and rK (?) - Line 375
Please check the figure number of Figure 10 → Figure 11 (?) - Figure 11: In the graph, nuclide labels do not appear clearly.
Major issues
- Line 111
The authors seem to have calibrated gamma-ray measurement systems using IAEA reference materials like RGU-1, RGTh-1, and RGK-1. As the radioactive concentration of minerals is the most important factor in this paper, the calibration process is also very important in order to increase the reliability of this paper.
Please, clearly ad specifically mention the efficiency calibration process in the manuscript.
- Line 377-381
To improve readability, please more specifically describe how the variations (%) of PC1 and PC2 were calculated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the submission of the carefully revised version of the manuscript in Ref., following the comments and modification of the Reviewer.
Below, the detailed list of the changes made in response to the Reviewer’s major comments (in italics), outlining every change made point by point, is provided. The changes are marked with highlighted (yellow color) in the manuscript text.
This paper is of great significance from a radiological point of view by presenting the radioactive concentration of minerals obtained from certain areas of Egypt that can be used as building materials. In particular, correlation analysis through various statistical approaches can be useful as a reference in related fields. I would like to comment on several issues to be corrected for publication in this journal.
Minor issues
- Line 110
- Please properly label the subscripts and correctly revise the radionuclide that emits 2614 keV gamma-ray energy.
- 214Bi → 214Bi
Response: Corrected in the manuscript.
- 2614 keV from 228Ac → 2614 keV from 208Tl
Response: Corrected in the text.
- Line 271 Please check the spelling of rU, rTh, and rK (?)
Response: Corrected in the text.
- Line 375 Please check the figure number of Figure 10 → Figure 11 (?)
Response: Corrected
- Figure 11: In the graph, nuclide labels do not appear clearly.
Response: Figure 11 seems fuzzy due to the correlations between the activity concentration of radionuclides and the radiological hazards parameters.
Major issues
- Line 111
The authors seem to have calibrated gamma-ray measurement systems using IAEA reference materials like RGU-1, RGTh-1, and RGK-1. As the radioactive concentration of minerals is the most important factor in this paper, the calibration process is also very important in order to increase the reliability of this paper.
Please, clearly ad specifically mention the efficiency calibration process in the manuscript.
Response: The following text added in the manuscript to describe the efficiency of the calibration “The efficiency of the calibration was performed as follow: The container was designed assuming that the radioactivity in the measurement samples was uniformly dispersed. The MDAs of 2, 4, and 12 Bq kg-1 for 238U, 232Th and 40K, respectively, were used in the granitic samples, which were calculated up to 2000 s. The error-propagation equation for systematic and random measurement errors was used to estimate the general uncertainty of radiation levels. Efficiency of the calibration has systematic errors from 0.5 to 2%, while radioactivity values have random errors of up to 5%.”
- Line 377-381
To improve readability, please more specifically describe how the variations (%) of PC1 and PC2 were calculated.
Response: The following text added in the text to describe PCA “A principal component analysis reduces many variables to a few different types of components. Within a multivariate data collection, the PCA results processing approach aims to find any simple underlying structure. Loadings that illustrate the changeable's relevance for the elements are bolded for values greater than 0.7. Characterizing each item exposes a few high loadings and a lot of near-zero loadings, allowing the rotation to achieve its objectives. Increasing the range of loadings, which drives to the extreme with negative, positive, or near-zero loadings, maximizes variance. The PCA was used in this study to look at the matrix correlation between several components using varimax rotations.”
The variations (%) of PC1 and PC2 can be defined and calculated:
Explained variance refers to the variance explained by each of the principal components (eigenvectors). It can be represented as a function of ratio of related eigenvalue and sum of eigenvalues of all eigenvectors.
We thank a lot the Reviewer for the useful and valuable comments that have helped to improve the manuscript.
Hoping that all the careful review is sufficient for the direct acceptance of the manuscript, thank you for your time and consideration.
Best wishes,
Mohamed. Y. M. Hanfi
on behalf of all co-authors
Reviewer 2 Report
After the corrections below, the manuscript can be suitable for the publication in the Journal:
1-Abstract must be extended to include all important results.
2- Introduction section required to support by some recent references.
3- Manuscript needs to revise grammatically carefully.
4- There are several typo errors.
5- Conclusion must be modified to be sound for readers.
6- References must be updated and have the same format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the submission of the carefully revised version of the manuscript in Ref., following the comments and modification of the Reviewer.
Below, the detailed list of the changes made in response to the Reviewer’s major comments (in italics), outlining every change made point by point, is provided. The changes are marked with highlighted (green color) in the manuscript text.
Reviewer#2
After the corrections below, the manuscript can be suitable for the publication in the Journal:
1-Abstract must be extended to include all important results.
Response: Abstract corrected and modified to illustrate the important results.
2- Introduction section required to support by some recent references.
Response: The recent references are added in the manuscript.
3- Manuscript needs to revise grammatically carefully.
Response: The manuscript revised grammatically.
4- There are several typo errors.
Response: All typo errors are corrected in the text.
5- Conclusion must be modified to be sound for readers.
Response: The conclusion modified in the manuscript.
6- References must be updated and have the same format.
Response: References updated in the manuscript and new references are added.
We thank a lot the Reviewer for the useful and valuable comments that have helped to improve the manuscript.
Hoping that all the careful review is sufficient for the direct acceptance of the manuscript, thank you for your time and consideration.
Best wishes,
Mohamed. Y. M. Hanfi
on behalf of all co-authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the authors have appropriately revised the manuscript. Therefore, I would like to recommend this manuscript to be accepted for publication in this journal.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
