Next Article in Journal
Images of Roman Imperial Denarii: A Curated Data Set for the Evaluation of Computer Vision Algorithms Applied to Ancient Numismatics, and an Overview of Challenges in the Field
Previous Article in Journal
Lasers for Satellite Uplinks and Downlinks
Open AccessArticlePost Publication Peer ReviewVersion 4, Revised

Portable XRF Quick-Scan Mapping for Potential Toxic Elements Pollutants in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: A Methodological Approach (Version 4, Revised)

1
Geological Survey of Norway, P.O. Box 6315 Torgarden, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
2
NoorderRuimte, Centre of Applied Research and Innovation on Area Development, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Zernikeplein 7, P.O. Box 3037, 9701 DA Groningen, The Netherlands
3
Deltares, Daltonlaan 600 3584 BK Postbus 85467 3508 AL Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 24 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 January 2020 / Published: 13 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Open Innovation)
Peer review status: 4th round review Read review reports
Version 4, Revised
Published: 13 June 2020
DOI: 10.3390/sci2020046
Download Full-text PDF

Version 3, Revised
Published: 17 May 2020
DOI: 10.3390/sci2020034
Download Full-text PDF

Version 2, Revised
Published: 27 March 2020
DOI: 10.3390/sci2020021
Download Full-text PDF

Version 1, Original
Published: 30 January 2020
DOI: 10.3390/sci2010005
Download Full-text PDF
Sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) such as swales are designed to collect, store and infiltrate a large amount of surface runoff water during heavy rainfall. Stormwater is known to transport pollutants, such as particle-bound Potential Toxic Elements (PTE), which are known to often accumulate in the topsoil. A portable XRF instrument (pXRF) is used to provide in situ spatial characterization of soil pollutants, specifically lead (Pb), zink (Zn) and copper (Cu). The method uses pXRF measurements of PTE along profiles with set intervals (1 meter) to cover the swale with cross-sections, across the inlet, the deepest point and the outlet. Soil samples are collected, and the In-Situ measurements are verified by the results from laboratory analyses. Stormwater is here shown to be the transporting media for the pollutants, so it is of importance to investigate areas most prone to flooding and infiltration. This quick scan method is time and cost-efficient, easy to execute and the results are comparable to any known (inter)national threshold criteria for polluted soils. The results are of great importance for all stakeholders in cities that are involved in climate adaptation and implementing green infrastructure in urban areas. However, too little is still known about the long-term functioning of the soil-based SuDS facilities. View Full-Text
Keywords: portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (pXRF); Potential Toxic Elements (PTE); lead (Pb), zinc (Zn); copper (Cu); topsoil; sustainable urban drainage systems; SuDS; LID; BMPs; WSUD; GI; SCMs portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (pXRF); Potential Toxic Elements (PTE); lead (Pb), zinc (Zn); copper (Cu); topsoil; sustainable urban drainage systems; SuDS; LID; BMPs; WSUD; GI; SCMs
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Venvik, G.; Boogaard, F.C. Portable XRF Quick-Scan Mapping for Potential Toxic Elements Pollutants in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: A Methodological Approach. Sci 2020, 2, 46.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1

Reviewer 1

Sent on 08 Mar 2020 by Cecile Le Guern | Approved with revisions
BRGM Geological Survey of France

General comments:

In a context where sustainable urban drainage system are more and more implemented, to filtrate and infiltrate storm water, there is a need to control the charge of contaminants in such system in order to make sure that they do not allow contaminants to impact groundwater. In this frame, the paper proposes a methodology to map heavy metals in sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), based on in situ measurement on topsoils with a portable XRF tool.

The methodological approach is rather well described, but it should be reorganized to allow a better understanding. The results are rather disappointing as no maps are presented. The section is sometimes difficult to follow: different pXRF tool used (difference), comparability with lab analysis not clear, applicability. It should be reorganized and completed. The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations.

In general, the authors refers very much to “this” study”, suggesting a report extract.

 

Detailed comments:

  • Title:

The title sounds in accordance with the objectives of the paper.

Should nevertheless the abbreviation SuDS be used?

Suggestion: “Quick in situ trace elements mapping for urban drainage system management: a methodological approach”

Instead of heavy metal, I prefer the term trace elements (more general).

 

  • Introduction:

It should be revised to end with the objectives of the paper.

1st and 2nd paragraphs writing ok.

The interest of checking the trace elements content of topsoils in SuDS for management purposes should be explained before giving the objectives of the paper (I would suggest putting it in between 1st and 2nd paragraphs).

The figure doesn’t appear necessary in the introduction part. It could be placed in the Material and method section to present the functioning of the swales and explain the sampling strategy.

Avoid repetition (eg pXRF quick and cost efficient).

The authors could add more references on pXRF use, like:

  • Lemière B. (2018), Bruno Lemiere. A Review of pXRF (Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence) Applications for Applied Geochemistry. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.02.006
  • RAMSEY M.H., & BOON K.A., 2012 - Can in situ geochemical measurements be more fit-for-purpose than those made ex situ? Applied Geochemistry 27, p. 969–976.
  • JEAN-SORO L., C. LE GUERN, B. BECHET, T. LEBEAU, M.F. RINGEARD, 2014 - Origin of trace elements in an urban garden in Nantes, France, Journal of Soils and Sediments, DOI 10.1007/s11368-014-0952-y.

 

  • Materials and methods

The 2nd paragraph of the introduction part of the section should be moved to the general introduction (as context), or to the discussion, or to the conclusion.

The section should be reorganized. A suggestion of organization is given here after

  1. Principle of sampling strategy
    1. Functioning of swales
    2. General sampling strategy (2.3.)
  2. Quantification of trace elements
    1. In situ measurements
      1. Principle of pXRF (agragetion of 2.1. and beginning of 2.2)
      2. Tools used

Explain the difference between the tools

  • Analysed samples

Preparation, With/without vegetation

  1. Lab analysis
    1. Preparation, ICP MS…
  2. Study sites
    1. Description
    2. Sampling/measurements

Precise here period of measurements => soils dry or wet, organic matter…

  1. Interpretation method

Comparison between in situ measurements and lab analysis

Comparison to threshold values

Mapping ?

 

  • Results

It is very disappointing to see no map of trace elements for each site, whereas the title and objectives announce it.

Although other studies have demonstrated the comparability of pXRF measurements and ICP/MS analyses, some matrix effect might disturb the correlation (influence of organic matter content, humidity of soil…, see eg. Lemiere et al, 2014). The proposed figure do not make it easy to get convinced that the correlation is sufficient. How about a figure compiling the correlation between in situ measurements and lab analysis?

Lemiere, B., Laperche, V., Haouche, L. & Auger, P., 2014 - Portable XRF and wet materials: application to dredged contaminated sediments from waterways. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 14, 257-264. 

It seems that the tests carried out in each site have given purposes=> reorganize the section according to these purposes

  1. Comparability of pXRF and ICP/MS measurements – reliability of pXRF in situ measurements
  2. Influence of pXRF tool and support of measurement (vegetation/topsoil)

Test carried out on Heiloo site.

Conclude on these aspects

  1. Position of measurement profiles regarding inlet, outlet and other site specificities
  2. Discussion
    1. It should focus on the methodological aspects

At the end of the discussion, the authors write: “The XRF quick scan analytical procedure could be used for water management and water quality control to comply with the Water Framework Directive [16] and the CIRIA‐The SuDS manual [2].” : one may understand that you can analyze water with pXRF. The sentence should be modified to avoid the possibility of such interpretation.

 

  • Conclusion

The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations for current sampling, as well as future sampling (survey).

Adding remarks: How to ensure an efficient survey? Soil sampling conduct to soil removal. How to make sure that sampling nearby in the future (survey) will provide comparable results => need to verify short distance spatial variations of contents. Have you made such tests in situ?

 

  • Figures and tables:

Current figures difficult to read. The Figures should be revised to fit with the revised organization of results and discussion section.

Fig 5: Size much too large (should fit in 1 p max). rem : Size of fig 7 is convenient.

Separate vegetation/topsoil results (support and in situ tool) from pXRF/ICP-MS results (measurement/analytical tool) to make results easier to understand. Dotted lines for vegetation will make reading easier too.

Cu in profile 1, 2 and 3 are set to 0. This must be changed to detection limit.

 

Fig 6: too many lines, difficult to read. Same comments as for fig 5 (pXRF/ICP-MS comparison). Fig. too large too.

Fig 7: what do the both profiles correspond to?

How about indicating threshold values in Fig 5 to 7?

 

Add at least maps comparing results to Dutch threshold values could be shown in addition (green dots below threshold value, yellow, red above intervention value.

Comparison between pXRF and ICP/MS results should be shown.

  • References:

Well documented paper. Some suggestions nevertheless (see comments in the introduction and discussion sections)

Response to Reviewer 1

Sent on 15 Jul 2020 by Guri Venvik, Floris C. Boogaard

Thank you very much for your review of this paper. pXRF is a well known instrument, and Method, within the Field of geochemistry, but unknown in other. This work focuses on establishing a mapping Method of potential toxic elements aimed at those working within water management and SuDS. We agree on Your comments, but have chosen to describe the Method and will present the results seperately in additional work. Thank you for improving the paper and adding valuable References. Specific feedback on comment are listed below. Comments and Suggestions for Authors General comments: In a context where sustainable urban drainage system are more and more implemented, to filtrate and infiltrate storm water, there is a need to control the charge of contaminants in such system in order to make sure that they do not allow contaminants to impact groundwater. In this frame, the paper proposes a methodology to map heavy metals in sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), based on in situ measurement on topsoils with a portable XRF tool. The methodological approach is rather well described, but it should be reorganized to allow a better understanding. The results are rather disappointing as no maps are presented. Answer: We have chosen to only address the method in this paper. The results will be published in separate papers. This is to not make the papers too lengthy. I agree on the suggestion showing results in maps. However, this will be done in a follow-up paper. The section is sometimes difficult to follow: different pXRF tool used (difference), comparability with lab analysis not clear, applicability. It should be reorganized and completed. The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. – conclusion is altered after suggestion. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations. In general, the authors refers very much to “this” study”, suggesting a report extract. Answer: Point taken. Changed accordingly. Detailed comments: • Title: The title sounds in accordance with the objectives of the paper. Should nevertheless the abbreviation SuDS be used? Suggestion: “Quick in situ trace elements mapping for urban drainage system management: a methodological approach” Answer: since this method can be used for several SuDS we would like to keep the title Instead of heavy metal, I prefer the term trace elements (more general). Answer: changed to Potential Toxic Elements (PTE) • Introduction: It should be revised to end with the objectives of the paper. 1st and 2nd paragraphs writing ok. The interest of checking the trace elements content of topsoils in SuDS for management purposes should be explained before giving the objectives of the paper (I would suggest putting it in between 1st and 2nd paragraphs). The figure doesn’t appear necessary in the introduction part. It could be placed in the Material and method section to present the functioning of the swales and explain the sampling strategy. Avoid repetition (eg pXRF quick and cost efficient). Answer: Changes as suggested The authors could add more references on pXRF use, like: • Lemière B. (2018), Bruno Lemiere. A Review of pXRF (Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence) Applications for Applied Geochemistry. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.02.006 • RAMSEY M.H., & BOON K.A., 2012 - Can in situ geochemical measurements be more fit-for-purpose than those made ex situ? Applied Geochemistry 27, p. 969–976. • JEAN-SORO L., C. LE GUERN, B. BECHET, T. LEBEAU, M.F. RINGEARD, 2014 - Origin of trace elements in an urban garden in Nantes, France, Journal of Soils and Sediments, DOI 10.1007/s11368-014-0952-y. Answer: we would like to thank the reviewer for these very relevant references, they are added to the text. • Materials and methods The 2nd paragraph of the introduction part of the section should be moved to the general introduction (as context), or to the discussion, or to the conclusion. Thank you for this suggestion. This work focus on the method, which is established within some disciplines but new in water management and SuDS. Therefore, the amount of results presented here is limited. After review of several reviewers, we choose to keep the present structure of the paper, but will keep your suggestion in mind in further work with the results. The section should be reorganized. A suggestion of organization is given here after 1. Principle of sampling strategy 1. Functioning of swales 2. General sampling strategy (2.3.) 2. Quantification of trace elements 1. In situ measurements 2. Principle of pXRF (agragetion of 2.1. and beginning of 2.2) 3. Tools used Explain the difference between the tools • Analysed samples Preparation, With/without vegetation 1. Lab analysis 1. Preparation, ICP MS… 2. Study sites 1. Description 2. Sampling/measurements Precise here period of measurements => soils dry or wet, organic matter… 4. Interpretation method Comparison between in situ measurements and lab analysis Comparison to threshold values Mapping ? • Results It is very disappointing to see no map of trace elements for each site, whereas the title and objectives announce it. Answer: We have deliberately not included maps of results in this paper to focus on the method for mapping and not the results of the mapping. Even though pXRF is an established tool within geochemistry, it is a new tool within SuDS and water management for mapping of PTE. Professions for SuDS and water management is our aimed audience to improve their approach of maintenance. Although other studies have demonstrated the comparability of pXRF measurements and ICP/MS analyses, some matrix effect might disturb the correlation (influence of organic matter content, humidity of soil…, see eg. Lemiere et al, 2014). Answer: Yes, we agree and are aware of the matrix disturbance. However, for the purpose of the method the consideration are the national threshold values. These thresholds are far above disturbance limits. Will include in discussion to stronger point out the possible factors of disturbance of the results. The proposed figure do not make it easy to get convinced that the correlation is sufficient. How about a figure compiling the correlation between in situ measurements and lab analysis? Answer: Good point. This will be included in the results paper. For the data presented here, the number of data are not large enough to get a significant correlation. Previous reviewers have commented this as well. Lemiere, B., Laperche, V., Haouche, L. & Auger, P., 2014 - Portable XRF and wet materials: application to dredged contaminated sediments from waterways. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 14, 257-264. Thank you for a good reference. It seems that the tests carried out in each site have given purposes=> reorganize the section according to these purposes 1. Comparability of pXRF and ICP/MS measurements – reliability of pXRF in situ measurements 2. Influence of pXRF tool and support of measurement (vegetation/topsoil) Test carried out on Heiloo site. Conclude on these aspects 3. Position of measurement profiles regarding inlet, outlet and other site specificities 4. Discussion 1. It should focus on the methodological aspects At the end of the discussion, the authors write: “The XRF quick scan analytical procedure could be used for water management and water quality control to comply with the Water Framework Directive [16] and the CIRIA‐The SuDS manual [2].” : one may understand that you can analyze water with pXRF. The sentence should be modified to avoid the possibility of such interpretation. Answer: Thank you for this feedback. Sentence is changed to clear misunderstanding. • Conclusion The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations for current sampling, as well as future sampling (survey). Answer: We have changes, according to suggestions. Adding remarks: How to ensure an efficient survey? Soil sampling conduct to soil removal. How to make sure that sampling nearby in the future (survey) will provide comparable results => need to verify short distance spatial variations of contents. Have you made such tests in situ? Answer: This will be included in follow up work that will focus on the results. • Figures and tables: Current figures difficult to read. The Figures should be revised to fit with the revised organization of results and discussion section. Fig 5: Size much too large (should fit in 1 p max). rem : Answer: Size of figure 5 is changed to fit one page. Size of fig 7 is convenient. Separate vegetation/topsoil results (support and in situ tool) from pXRF/ICP-MS results (measurement/analytical tool) to make results easier to understand. Dotted lines for vegetation will make reading easier too. Cu in profile 1, 2 and 3 are set to 0. This must be changed to detection limit. Answer: Cu below LOD commented in figure text Fig 6: too many lines, difficult to read. Same comments as for fig 5 (pXRF/ICP-MS comparison). Fig. too large too. Fig 7: what do the both profiles correspond to? Answer: The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the method for pXRF to map potential toxic elements in SuDS. The results are primarily shown to demonstrate the spatial distribution of the elements, and that the water flow controls the pattern of build-up. How about indicating threshold values in Fig 5 to 7? Answer: All results are well below intervention values, thereby no point in adding in the figures. Add at least maps comparing results to Dutch threshold values could be shown in addition (green dots below threshold value, yellow, red above intervention value. Comparison between pXRF and ICP/MS results should be shown. Answer: We have chosen to only address the method in this paper. The results will be published in separate papers. This is to not make the papers too lengthy. I agree on the suggestion showing results in maps. However, this will be done in a follow-up paper. • References: Well documented paper. Some suggestions nevertheless (see comments in the introduction and discussion sections) Answer to reviewer: Thank you for your feedback, that contributes to improve the paper. The title points out that As pointe

Reviewer 2

Sent on 07 Feb 2020 by Oscar Lantes | Approved
Archeometry Unity in the USC

This paper is quite interesting because the authors propose a way to easily measure in situ pollutants. They use portable XRF equipment and validate the measurements with ICP-MS in the laboratory. This approach facilitates the monitoring of the heavy metals Pb, Zn and Cu in urban contexts.

The text is well-structured, clear and easy to read. They make a good sampling and they calibrate their XRF equipment with different Dutch soil standard samples.

The only aspect I could point to has to do with the precision and reproducibility of the portable XRF instrument’s measurements. The authors indicate that the detection limits of their equipment are 1, 4 and 5 ppm for Pb, Zn and Cu respectively, as the companies indicate. For ideal samples these values would be accurate, but in complex samples such as soils they could increase. It would be good to measure some soil standard samples in the laboratory to check this limit, although this is not critical, because the recorded values are generally above those limits.

A more important aspect would be to check the reproducibility and the accuracy of the equipment. The portable XRF instrument has a narrow spot and the soil samples are usually very heterogeneous which could imply a poor representation of the results. We suggest making a few measurements of some soil standards and present the certified values and the recovered values in a table to generate reassurance in this aspect.

The authors’ idea of a validation of field measurements in comparison with the ICP-MS lab measurements is a good proposal. In spite of this, sometimes validation could be inaccurate in other soils, due to a heterogeneous structure, aggregates, varying porosities and diverse amounts of organic matter, which makes reproducibility more difficult. This validation is satisfactorily checked by the authors in this study, but it should maybe be checked again whenever soils of different mineralogy, granulometry or structure were measured. This aspect could be reflected in the text.

Another interesting improvement for future works would be including spatial measurements to obtain a distribution of the pollutants in swales.

Response to Reviewer 2

Sent on 15 Jul 2020 by Guri Venvik, Floris C. Boogaard

Thank you very much for your review of this paper. pXRF is a well known instrument, and Method, within the Field of geochemistry, but unknown in other. This work focuses on establishing a mapping Method of potential toxic elements aimed at those working within water management and SuDS. We agree on Your comments, but have chosen to describe the Method and will present the results seperately in additional work. Thank you for improving the paper and adding valuable References. Specific feedback on comment are listed below. Comments and Suggestions for Authors General comments: In a context where sustainable urban drainage system are more and more implemented, to filtrate and infiltrate storm water, there is a need to control the charge of contaminants in such system in order to make sure that they do not allow contaminants to impact groundwater. In this frame, the paper proposes a methodology to map heavy metals in sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), based on in situ measurement on topsoils with a portable XRF tool. The methodological approach is rather well described, but it should be reorganized to allow a better understanding. The results are rather disappointing as no maps are presented. Answer: We have chosen to only address the method in this paper. The results will be published in separate papers. This is to not make the papers too lengthy. I agree on the suggestion showing results in maps. However, this will be done in a follow-up paper. The section is sometimes difficult to follow: different pXRF tool used (difference), comparability with lab analysis not clear, applicability. It should be reorganized and completed. The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. – conclusion is altered after suggestion. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations. In general, the authors refers very much to “this” study”, suggesting a report extract. Answer: Point taken. Changed accordingly. Detailed comments: • Title: The title sounds in accordance with the objectives of the paper. Should nevertheless the abbreviation SuDS be used? Suggestion: “Quick in situ trace elements mapping for urban drainage system management: a methodological approach” Answer: since this method can be used for several SuDS we would like to keep the title Instead of heavy metal, I prefer the term trace elements (more general). Answer: changed to Potential Toxic Elements (PTE) • Introduction: It should be revised to end with the objectives of the paper. 1st and 2nd paragraphs writing ok. The interest of checking the trace elements content of topsoils in SuDS for management purposes should be explained before giving the objectives of the paper (I would suggest putting it in between 1st and 2nd paragraphs). The figure doesn’t appear necessary in the introduction part. It could be placed in the Material and method section to present the functioning of the swales and explain the sampling strategy. Avoid repetition (eg pXRF quick and cost efficient). Answer: Changes as suggested The authors could add more references on pXRF use, like: • Lemière B. (2018), Bruno Lemiere. A Review of pXRF (Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence) Applications for Applied Geochemistry. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.02.006 • RAMSEY M.H., & BOON K.A., 2012 - Can in situ geochemical measurements be more fit-for-purpose than those made ex situ? Applied Geochemistry 27, p. 969–976. • JEAN-SORO L., C. LE GUERN, B. BECHET, T. LEBEAU, M.F. RINGEARD, 2014 - Origin of trace elements in an urban garden in Nantes, France, Journal of Soils and Sediments, DOI 10.1007/s11368-014-0952-y. Answer: we would like to thank the reviewer for these very relevant references, they are added to the text. • Materials and methods The 2nd paragraph of the introduction part of the section should be moved to the general introduction (as context), or to the discussion, or to the conclusion. Thank you for this suggestion. This work focus on the method, which is established within some disciplines but new in water management and SuDS. Therefore, the amount of results presented here is limited. After review of several reviewers, we choose to keep the present structure of the paper, but will keep your suggestion in mind in further work with the results. The section should be reorganized. A suggestion of organization is given here after 1. Principle of sampling strategy 1. Functioning of swales 2. General sampling strategy (2.3.) 2. Quantification of trace elements 1. In situ measurements 2. Principle of pXRF (agragetion of 2.1. and beginning of 2.2) 3. Tools used Explain the difference between the tools • Analysed samples Preparation, With/without vegetation 1. Lab analysis 1. Preparation, ICP MS… 2. Study sites 1. Description 2. Sampling/measurements Precise here period of measurements => soils dry or wet, organic matter… 4. Interpretation method Comparison between in situ measurements and lab analysis Comparison to threshold values Mapping ? • Results It is very disappointing to see no map of trace elements for each site, whereas the title and objectives announce it. Answer: We have deliberately not included maps of results in this paper to focus on the method for mapping and not the results of the mapping. Even though pXRF is an established tool within geochemistry, it is a new tool within SuDS and water management for mapping of PTE. Professions for SuDS and water management is our aimed audience to improve their approach of maintenance. Although other studies have demonstrated the comparability of pXRF measurements and ICP/MS analyses, some matrix effect might disturb the correlation (influence of organic matter content, humidity of soil…, see eg. Lemiere et al, 2014). Answer: Yes, we agree and are aware of the matrix disturbance. However, for the purpose of the method the consideration are the national threshold values. These thresholds are far above disturbance limits. Will include in discussion to stronger point out the possible factors of disturbance of the results. The proposed figure do not make it easy to get convinced that the correlation is sufficient. How about a figure compiling the correlation between in situ measurements and lab analysis? Answer: Good point. This will be included in the results paper. For the data presented here, the number of data are not large enough to get a significant correlation. Previous reviewers have commented this as well. Lemiere, B., Laperche, V., Haouche, L. & Auger, P., 2014 - Portable XRF and wet materials: application to dredged contaminated sediments from waterways. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 14, 257-264. Thank you for a good reference. It seems that the tests carried out in each site have given purposes=> reorganize the section according to these purposes 1. Comparability of pXRF and ICP/MS measurements – reliability of pXRF in situ measurements 2. Influence of pXRF tool and support of measurement (vegetation/topsoil) Test carried out on Heiloo site. Conclude on these aspects 3. Position of measurement profiles regarding inlet, outlet and other site specificities 4. Discussion 1. It should focus on the methodological aspects At the end of the discussion, the authors write: “The XRF quick scan analytical procedure could be used for water management and water quality control to comply with the Water Framework Directive [16] and the CIRIA‐The SuDS manual [2].” : one may understand that you can analyze water with pXRF. The sentence should be modified to avoid the possibility of such interpretation. Answer: Thank you for this feedback. Sentence is changed to clear misunderstanding. • Conclusion The beginning of conclusion looks like an abstract. The authors should focus on more general conclusions: interest of proposed methodology, recommendations for current sampling, as well as future sampling (survey). Answer: We have changes, according to suggestions. Adding remarks: How to ensure an efficient survey? Soil sampling conduct to soil removal. How to make sure that sampling nearby in the future (survey) will provide comparable results => need to verify short distance spatial variations of contents. Have you made such tests in situ? Answer: This will be included in follow up work that will focus on the results. • Figures and tables: Current figures difficult to read. The Figures should be revised to fit with the revised organization of results and discussion section. Fig 5: Size much too large (should fit in 1 p max). rem : Answer: Size of figure 5 is changed to fit one page. Size of fig 7 is convenient. Separate vegetation/topsoil results (support and in situ tool) from pXRF/ICP-MS results (measurement/analytical tool) to make results easier to understand. Dotted lines for vegetation will make reading easier too. Cu in profile 1, 2 and 3 are set to 0. This must be changed to detection limit. Answer: Cu below LOD commented in figure text Fig 6: too many lines, difficult to read. Same comments as for fig 5 (pXRF/ICP-MS comparison). Fig. too large too. Fig 7: what do the both profiles correspond to? Answer: The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the method for pXRF to map potential toxic elements in SuDS. The results are primarily shown to demonstrate the spatial distribution of the elements, and that the water flow controls the pattern of build-up. How about indicating threshold values in Fig 5 to 7? Answer: All results are well below intervention values, thereby no point in adding in the figures. Add at least maps comparing results to Dutch threshold values could be shown in addition (green dots below threshold value, yellow, red above intervention value. Comparison between pXRF and ICP/MS results should be shown. Answer: We have chosen to only address the method in this paper. The results will be published in separate papers. This is to not make the papers too lengthy. I agree on the suggestion showing results in maps. However, this will be done in a follow-up paper. • References: Well documented paper. Some suggestions nevertheless (see comments in the introduction and discussion sections) Answer to reviewer: Thank you for your feedback, that contributes to improve the paper. The title points out that As pointe

Reviewer 3

Sent on 09 May 2020 by Muhammad Jawad Nasim | Approved with revisions
Saarland University, Saarbruecken, Germany

The authors describe a quick scan mapping technology to detect and quantify the envromental pollutants i.e.  Potential Toxic Elements in three urban drainage sytems. Authors have employed a portabale X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. authors have also verified some of the results with ICP-MS which is a highly sensitive technique. The study is well designed, the experiments are well conducted and the manuscript is also well written. The mauscript can be accepted with minor formating and language correction as mentioned below

 

Page numbers start on page 2   (page 2 is marked as page 1)   

please replace "metre" with "m" in the text , for instance, in the section of materials  and methods. (1-2 m instead of 1-2 metres  and 5-7 m instead of 5-7 metres etc)

Page 1. Introduction. line 5. "ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and nature-based solutions (NBS) and more [3]) " need to be replaced by "ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), nature-based solutions (NBS) and others [3]) a"

Page 1. Introduction. line 9. "can be incorporated management and maintenance" need to be replaced with "can be incorporated into management and maintenance"

Page 2. Introduction. line 4. "Studies by amongst others Jones " delete amongt others 

Page 2. Introduction. line 7-9. repharase the sentence "The high cost of soil analysis is the main reason the investigation of the environmental-technical functioning of rainwater facilities has not been systematically conducted on a large scale " 

Page 2. Introduction. line 11-12.  "Portable XRF measurements are an established " can be repalced with  "Portable XRF measurements provide an established "

Page 3, Materials and Methods.  "The proposed approach for mapping SuDS in used swales as pilot facilities " can be repalced with  "The proposed approach was exploited for mapping SuDS in used swales as pilot facilities"

Page 3, Materials and Methods.  "The in situ pXRF measurements are of topsoil (0-3 cm)" can be replaced with  "The in situ pXRF measurements of topsoil (0-3 cm) were performed"

Page 3, Materials and Methods.  "The three pilot locations presented her and...." can be replaced with "The three pilot locations presented here and...."

Page 4, section 2.2. "...produces a set of unique set characteristic ...." can be replaced with "...produces a set of unique characteristic ...."

Page 4, section 2.3. "Measurements were collected at a systematic interval; 1 metre intervals were used." can be replaced with "Measurements were performed at a systematic interval of 1 m."

Page 4, section 2.3. "Such measurements will provide the background value and weather any build-up contamination is present in the swale." can be replaced with "Such measurements will provide the background value and whether any build-up contamination is present in the swale."

Page 4, section 2.4. "The soil samples were collected of the topsoil" can be replaced with "The soil samples of the topsoil were collected"

 Page 4, section 2.4. "18 days at 26 Celsius (min26 ◦C–max 29 ◦C)," can be replaced with "18 days at 26 ◦C (min26 ◦C–max 29 ◦C),"

Page 5, section 2.4.  figure 2 "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis was collected" can be replaced with "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis were collected"

Page 5, section 2.4.  figure 3 "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis was collected" can be replaced with "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis were collected"

Page 7, section 2.5.1.   "Profile 1 (P1) is close to the south-eastern end of the swale, profile 2 (P2) is 10 metre from P1 and profile 3 (P3) is 40 metre from P1" can be replaced with "Profile 1 (P1) is located close to the south-eastern end of the swale.  Profile 2 (P2)   and  profile 3 (P3) are situated 10m and 40 m from P1"

Page 9, section 3.2, " Values are high close to the inlet and.." can be replaced with "Values are high near the inlet and.."

Page 10, Figure 6, " National intervention values for topsoil is respectively lead (Pb) 530 ppm, zinc (Zn) 720 ppm and copper (Cu) 190 ppm (Table 1)." can be replaced with "National intervention values for topsoil are  530 ppm,  720 ppm and 190 ppm for Pb, Zn and Cu, respectively (Table 1)."

Page 11. please revise the sentence  " The use of pXRF for in situ measuring in the field is increasing and as is evidence of the tool’s reliability, most notably Radu and Diamond [24], Bull, Brown and Turner [38], Turner and Solman [39], Rincheval, Cohen and Hemmings [28], Turner et al. [29,40] and Lemière et al. [41]."

Page 11. " This has been also pointed out by Kalnicky and Singhvi [11]." can be replaced with " This notion has also been pointed out by Kalnicky and Singhvi [11]."

Page 12. Conclsions, " IA methodology of in situ " can be replaced with " A methodology of in situ "

 

Response to Reviewer 3

Sent on 15 Jul 2020 by Guri Venvik, Floris C. Boogaard

Thank you for your feedback on this manuscript. Your comments helped improve the paper. Here are the changes made in detail: Page numbers start on page 2 (page 2 is marked as page 1) please replace "metre" with "m" in the text , for instance, in the section of materials and methods. (1-2 m instead of 1-2 metres and 5-7 m instead of 5-7 metres etc) All “metre” are changed to m as suggested Page 1. Introduction. line 5. "ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and nature-based solutions (NBS) and more [3]) " need to be replaced by "ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), nature-based solutions (NBS) and others [3]) a" Changed as suggested Page 1. Introduction. line 9. "can be incorporated management and maintenance" need to be replaced with "can be incorporated into management and maintenance" Changed as suggested Page 2. Introduction. line 4. "Studies by amongst others Jones " delete amongst others Changed as suggested Page 2. Introduction. line 7-9. repharase the sentence "The high cost of soil analysis is the main reason the investigation of the environmental-technical functioning of rainwater facilities has not been systematically conducted on a large scale " Changed to ‘Systematic, large scale investigation of environmental-technical rainwater facilities has not been conducted due to the high cost of soil analysis. ‘ Page 2. Introduction. line 11-12. "Portable XRF measurements are an established " can be replaced with "Portable XRF measurements provide an established " Changed as suggested Page 3, Materials and Methods. "The proposed approach for mapping SuDS in used swales as pilot facilities " can be replaced with "The proposed approach was exploited for mapping SuDS in used swales as pilot facilities" Changed as suggested Page 3, Materials and Methods. "The in situ pXRF measurements are of topsoil (0-3 cm)" can be replaced with "The in situ pXRF measurements of topsoil (0-3 cm) were performed" Changed as suggested Page 3, Materials and Methods. "The three pilot locations presented her and...." can be replaced with "The three pilot locations presented here and...." Changed as suggested Page 4, section 2.2. "...produces a set of unique set characteristic ...." can be replaced with "...produces a set of unique characteristic ...." Changed as suggested Page 4, section 2.3. "Measurements were collected at a systematic interval; 1 metre intervals were used." can be replaced with "Measurements were performed at a systematic interval of 1 m." Changed as suggested Page 4, section 2.3. "Such measurements will provide the background value and weather any build-up contamination is present in the swale." can be replaced with "Such measurements will provide the background value and whether any build-up contamination is present in the swale." Changed as suggested Page 4, section 2.4. "The soil samples were collected of the topsoil" can be replaced with "The soil samples of the topsoil were collected" Changed as suggested Page 4, section 2.4. "18 days at 26 Celsius (min26 ◦C–max 29 ◦C)," can be replaced with "18 days at 26 ◦C (min26 ◦C–max 29 ◦C)," Changed as suggested Page 5, section 2.4. figure 2 "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis was collected" can be replaced with "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis were collected" Changed as suggested Page 5, section 2.4. figure 3 "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis was collected" can be replaced with "Two soil samples for ICP -MS analysis were collected" Changed as suggested Page 7, section 2.5.1. "Profile 1 (P1) is close to the south-eastern end of the swale, profile 2 (P2) is 10 metre from P1 and profile 3 (P3) is 40 metre from P1" can be replaced with "Profile 1 (P1) is located close to the south-eastern end of the swale. Profile 2 (P2) and profile 3 (P3) are situated 10m and 40 m from P1" Changed as suggested Page 9, section 3.2, " Values are high close to the inlet and.." can be replaced with "Values are high near the inlet and.." Changed as suggested Page 10, Figure 6, " National intervention values for topsoil is respectively lead (Pb) 530 ppm, zinc (Zn) 720 ppm and copper (Cu) 190 ppm (Table 1)." can be replaced with "National intervention values for topsoil are 530 ppm, 720 ppm and 190 ppm for Pb, Zn and Cu, respectively (Table 1)." Changed to: Work by Radu and Diamond [24], Bull, Brown and Turner [38], Turner and Solman [39], Rincheval, Cohen and Hemmings [28], Turner et al. [29,40] and Lemière et al. [41] have documented the pXRF tool’s reliability. Page 11. please revise the sentence "The use of pXRF for in situ measuring in the field is increasing and as is evidence of the tool’s reliability, most notably Radu and Diamond [24], Bull, Brown and Turner [38], Turner and Solman [39], Rincheval, Cohen and Hemmings [28], Turner et al. [29,40] and Lemière et al. [41]." Sentence revised Page 11. " This has been also pointed out by Kalnicky and Singhvi [11]." can be replaced with " This notion has also been pointed out by Kalnicky and Singhvi [11]." Changed as suggested Page 12. Conclusions, " IA methodology of in situ " can be replaced with " A methodology of in situ " Changed as suggested

Back to TopTop