Spatial Distribution and Radiological Risk Assessment of Natural Radionuclides in Soils from Zacatecas, Mexico
, Carlos RÃos-MartÃnez, José Luis Pinedo-Vega, Fernando Mireles-GarcÃa, Fernando De la Torre Aguilar and Edmundo Escareño-Juárez
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and corrections for the authors are contained in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the paper entitled Spatial distribution and radiological risk assessment of natural radionuclides in soils from Zacatecas, Mexico.
The study is acceptable in terms of experimental design and presentation of results, but there are some issues that I believe should be improved for better understanding. There is a lot of basic information in the paper that should not be included in the manuscript but rather in supplementary material, and there is a lot of repetitive information presented in tables and figures.
To make it easier to read, I suggest you indicate the range of citations (e.g., [1-5, 18, 19, 21-23, 45] instead of [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [18], [19], [21], [22], [23], [45]).
Ln120-123. Justify the methodological procedure and indicate the citation.
Ln123. Separate the symbol from the number.
Ln132. What does FWHM mean?
Table 1. I suggest including a dividing line between M1-M19 and M20-M37.
What quality system was used? Were standard samples or reference material used?
There appears to be redundant information between the tables and figures; it is not necessary to repeat information. Table 2 and Figure 4 and between Table 3 and Figure 5. If you choose to include the figures, the tables can be included as supplementary material or vice versa.
Section 2.2 “Sampling and determination of specific activity.” It is not clear in the text what the average activities are. Could you list them? It is also not indicated whether the measurements are expressed in dry weight of the sample (d.w.). This should be indicated in the descriptions of the tables and figures where reference is made to them. (e.g., Bq kg-1 (d.w.))
Figure 3. I believe that this figure does not contribute anything to the manuscript. I suggest sending it to the supplementary material.
Appendix A. I suggest that the information contained in Appendix A be incorporated as supplementary material.
Results: The values for each of the samples analyzed are not shown. It would be interesting to provide them in a table as supplementary material.
Section 3.7 Geospatial interpolations. You indicate that Kriging was performed, but you do not indicate the software used to perform it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have partially addressed my corrections. However, I believe they have not fully grasped the constructive tone of my explanations, and in some cases, I have noticed a defensive attitude which, in fact, should not be the case. Therefore, I think they should consider my observations more constructively, as at no point is my intention to undervalue the excellent work carried out, but rather to help make it clearer. The article is a strong candidate for publication in the journal, but I would like it to be easy to read for the audience and for the authors to understand this, rather than thinking that I intend to diminish their study.
Regarding the topic of specific activity, I believe the authors are not interpreting the definition correctly. Specific activity allows determining the Bq of a given radionuclide based on the mass of that radionuclide, not the mass of the sample as implied by the term "activity concentration." The authors may consult sources such as: https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-uranium, where specific activities are defined. More common examples in environmental radioactivity include those of 238U, approximately 12.5 Bq/g, and 232Th, approximately 4.54 Bq/g.
To avoid excessively altering the authors’ work, I think the following figures could be removed (transferring the removed figures to the supplementary information). Moreover, the figures have very low resolution and the text is unreadable, so an editing of the figures would be necessary. In the first review, I could not continue reading due to the numerous corrections, but in this second review, I believe it is necessary.
Figure 3: Increase the font size because it is unreadable; this distribution is acceptable.
Figure 4: Increase the text size; the figure provides important information.
Figure 5: Move to supplementary information, as these represent slope values reflected in Figure 3, showing the same type of distribution and are normal; it is redundant.
Figure 6: It seems redundant to me, but the authors believe it is necessary, so I leave it to their discretion. Again, the font size is very small and difficult to read.
Figure 7: This figure is very important and necessary; only the font size needs to be increased.
Figure 8: The three sub-figures are equivalent, and if the authors agree, the cluster graph (b) is the most visual and representative. The others could be moved to supplementary information.
Figure 9: The figures have very low resolution; again, the three are equivalent, and showing figure (c) alone would be sufficiently illustrative, so the other two are unnecessary.
Figure 10: Although this figure and section may confuse the reader somewhat, since there is no limit in the article, it could remain; however, I would remove it because I believe it does not provide useful information to the reader.
Figure 11: I believe figure (b) is sufficient, and figure (a) is unnecessary, especially since it has poor resolution and is unclear.
Figure 12: The authors should keep only the figures for the three radionuclides; the others are equivalent (as they can see themselves) and only distract the reader from the main objective of the work.
I ask the authors to consider these corrections, as my intention is to accept the work, but I believe that with so many repeated graphs, the authors get lost in too many redundant details. This is my intention and not to trouble the authors who have done an excellent job, but my role as a reviewer is precisely that, and I stand firm on it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
Many thanks for your improved manuscript, all my sugestions, comments and issues have been taken into account so I accept the present version as is
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for having considered all my corrections, and I insist that my intention was to review the work but to help improve it, as it has been. Only 2 minor corrections:
Expression 4: remove (Bq kg-1) from the expression.
Expression 5: remove (nGy h-1) from the expression
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
