Comparison of X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) Results for an Environmental Assessment at a Mercury Site in Kyrgyzstan
, Casey Bartrem 1,†, Ainash A. Sharshenova 2,3, Kasiet S. Salymbekova 3,4, Makhmud B. Isirailov 5, Saparbai A. Gaynazarov 5,6, Roman Gilmanov 7, Ian H. von Lindern 1,†, Margrit von Braun 1,8 and Gregory Möller 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-There are some papers that have not been considered but appear to be relevant. In lines 40 to 41, e.g., the authors mention that no studies have been found in the scientific literature comparing XRF to AAS for Hg. However, the authors may with to consider the following paper from 1976:
Janssen JH, van den Enk JE, Bult R, de Groot DC. Determination of total mercury in workroom air by atomic absorption or X-ray fluorescence spectrometry after collection on carbon-loaded paper. Anal Chim Acta. 1976 Jul;84(2):319-26. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(01)82230-3. PMID: 962152.
-Furthermore, I would recommend mentioning papers comparing XRF to AAS for other elements, such as lead. See, e.g., the following study:
Todd AC, Moshier EL, Carroll S, Casteel SW. Validation of X-ray fluorescence-measured Swine femur lead against atomic absorption spectrometry. Environ Health Perspect. 2001 Nov;109(11):1115-9. doi: 10.1289/ehp.011091115. PMID: 11712995; PMCID: PMC1240471.
-The coefficient of determination (R2) should be defined.
-Use n-dash instead of minus for all range indications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Introduction needs to be a little bit enlarged in order to better highlight the aim of a study which is quite of interest. Adding few extra references will be also desirable.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
