Study on the Accumulation of Heavy Metals in Different Soil-Crop Systems and Ecological Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Jiao River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To whom it may concern:
This paper is mostly directly to the ecological risk factor for heavy metal (HM) accumulation that was assessed in the four selected crop systems. There was not an indication of which part of the tissue was showing in the graphs (roots vs fruits (grain) from corn and/or wheat. Accumulation in the edible parts will be different as well as their major tissues for different HM up take into the plant tissues.
Is there an account for the translocation factor from root to above ground tissues? Transfer factor.
Line 18. soils /not soils
Line 20. do your mean source that contributes to the contaminants? attributes?
Lines 28, 279, , 300, 303, 318, 332 Wheat instead of white (several times during the paper). Table 8 and 9
Line 29, 309, 330, 363,381. Accumulation instead of enrichment (many times in papers of biofortification, you can use that word, because you purposely are adding in the experiments a certain element of desire that you would like to accumulate in a tissue). Also, some papers used specific enrichment factor if you are measuring the amount of HM’s in certain areas. In your sentences, you mention that there is a presence of HM’s in those areas.
Line. 30-32 Change paragraph, since this sentence is referring to a graph results, the reader will not understand the meaning in this paragraph.
Line 50. The same " were accumulated on the surface" instead enrich.
Line 51. What do you mean when you said jointly? foreign HM's?
The introduction does not bring enough information of the possible sources of contaminants (industries) that could bring some of the drainage into the river basin. Also, there is no indication of the importance of those crops for the community. Later, in your materials and methods you add a little bit of more information that should be in the introduction.
Line 59. Should expand much more about the possible toxicity for humans as well for plants if in contact with poisonous HM’s.
Line 111. In materials and methods there is no mention at all of the species used and perhaps some varieties within those species. No, mention of the time of cultivation, how big were the plants, production of grain in wheat or corn. Also, there is not description or physicochemical data of the soils found in the crop systems. Many factors like pH and electroconductivity may also affect the bioconcentration into the tissues of HM’s.
You could fuse table 5 and 6.
Line 200. the word exceedance ???
In the tables and graphs, the way that you described heavy metals is always different, why there is not a consistency in keeping the order through all document?
Line 212. Table 5 and 6 perhaps could be fused, adding those two values from table 6 into table 5.
Lines 231, 251,259,288,374. Do not begin a sentence with a chemical symbol, it may mislead the reader. for example, you might indicate As mentioned before... / versus As the arsenic element. Begin by the whole name of by an article (an /a/the)
Line 240. inhomogeneous /non-homogeneous
Line 254. Table 7. You indicated the correlation meaning ** and *** but not * one, what is the value for just one indicated in the table?
Line 273. What papers support your statement that wheat might have higher mercury (Hg) absorption? it is absorption, accumulation, or translocation into tissues?
Line 300. Table 8 and Table 9 (line 318), correct Corp / for Crop
Line 273-279 All information is found in table 8, why not just mention the most important points that you want to address?
Line 94, 280. Papers are written in past tense, "were similar" instead of are similar.
Table 10 is cut, fix the lay out.
Table 8 is the same as Figure 5, just another layout.
Line 295. You mentioned that all agricultural crops are safe. Where in your experiments did you measure the content in grain (corn and wheat) and in potatoes (tuber) and leeks (leaves), for metal content? Only examining the roots does not indicate that the HM's are not translocating into other tissues.
Line 332. In the Pearson’s correlation table10, you indicate that *a. was not detected, you need to modify the indication, because only * (doesn’t have any meaning) and *a, only the a is visible for mercury (Hg)
Line 491. Province instead of Probince.
There is not a discussion; if you are going to combine Results and Discussion that will be fine, but there is not a real discussion on paper.
There is not a discussion mentioning the interaction of the different elements, and the possible implications for diet or intake by the population. There is no information about the accumulation of some HM’s in each of the crops. Is there a difference in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in the different areas where the agricultural crops were growing? There is no discussion of the possibility for conditions that in the future could change year to year, how could impact those regions and the crops. That’s why is so important to know the soil characteristics at the moment. There is also difference in the surface and the sub-surface where the crops are cultivated. Tendencies for water to wash out the crops the same in the different regions? I was surprise also to do not find that particular data about the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in your previous paper addressing the same region Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8329; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168329
Within the text there is no differentiation between toxic or pollutants heavy metals, in comparison, with the essential ones, like zinc, nickel.
The references are cited in different manners. For example, some references mentioned all the names, in line 457 reference 20, only capital letters are written after the first author. The journals are written all in capitals or the first word with a capital letter and others with each word in upper case letter. It must all be cited the same.
Line 537. Chinese / instead of Chianese
There are many papers in Chinese, there are also some English papers that could have some important information, for example Xu, D., Shen, Z., Dou, C. et al. Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patterns. Sci Rep 12, 9211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13140-1
There are missing papers that talk about heavy metal accumulation in each of the crops used; there are many in wheat and corn, but not many in potatoes and leeks.
To whom it may concern:
This paper is mostly directly to the ecological risk factor for heavy metal (HM) accumulation that was assessed in the four selected crop systems. There was not an indication of which part of the tissue was showing in the graphs (roots vs fruits (grain) from corn and/or wheat. Accumulation in the edible parts will be different as well as their major tissues for different HM up take into the plant tissues.
Is there an account for the translocation factor from root to above ground tissues? Transfer factor.
Line 18. soils /not soils
Line 20. do your mean source that contributes to the contaminants? attributes?
Lines 28, 279, , 300, 303, 318, 332 Wheat instead of white (several times during the paper). Table 8 and 9
Line 29, 309, 330, 363,381. Accumulation instead of enrichment (many times in papers of biofortification, you can use that word, because you purposely are adding in the experiments a certain element of desire that you would like to accumulate in a tissue). Also, some papers used specific enrichment factor if you are measuring the amount of HM’s in certain areas. In your sentences, you mention that there is a presence of HM’s in those areas.
Line. 30-32 Change paragraph, since this sentence is referring to a graph results, the reader will not understand the meaning in this paragraph.
Line 50. The same " were accumulated on the surface" instead enrich.
Line 51. What do you mean when you said jointly? foreign HM's?
The introduction does not bring enough information of the possible sources of contaminants (industries) that could bring some of the drainage into the river basin. Also, there is no indication of the importance of those crops for the community. Later, in your materials and methods you add a little bit of more information that should be in the introduction.
Line 59. Should expand much more about the possible toxicity for humans as well for plants if in contact with poisonous HM’s.
Line 111. In materials and methods there is no mention at all of the species used and perhaps some varieties within those species. No, mention of the time of cultivation, how big were the plants, production of grain in wheat or corn. Also, there is not description or physicochemical data of the soils found in the crop systems. Many factors like pH and electroconductivity may also affect the bioconcentration into the tissues of HM’s.
You could fuse table 5 and 6.
Line 200. the word exceedance ???
In the tables and graphs, the way that you described heavy metals is always different, why there is not a consistency in keeping the order through all document?
Line 212. Table 5 and 6 perhaps could be fused, adding those two values from table 6 into table 5.
Lines 231, 251,259,288,374. Do not begin a sentence with a chemical symbol, it may mislead the reader. for example, you might indicate As mentioned before... / versus As the arsenic element. Begin by the whole name of by an article (an /a/the)
Line 240. inhomogeneous /non-homogeneous
Line 254. Table 7. You indicated the correlation meaning ** and *** but not * one, what is the value for just one indicated in the table?
Line 273. What papers support your statement that wheat might have higher mercury (Hg) absorption? it is absorption, accumulation, or translocation into tissues?
Line 300. Table 8 and Table 9 (line 318), correct Corp / for Crop
Line 273-279 All information is found in table 8, why not just mention the most important points that you want to address?
Line 94, 280. Papers are written in past tense, "were similar" instead of are similar.
Table 10 is cut, fix the lay out.
Table 8 is the same as Figure 5, just another layout.
Line 295. You mentioned that all agricultural crops are safe. Where in your experiments did you measure the content in grain (corn and wheat) and in potatoes (tuber) and leeks (leaves), for metal content? Only examining the roots does not indicate that the HM's are not translocating into other tissues.
Line 332. In the Pearson’s correlation table10, you indicate that *a. was not detected, you need to modify the indication, because only * (doesn’t have any meaning) and *a, only the a is visible for mercury (Hg)
Line 491. Province instead of Probince.
There is not a discussion; if you are going to combine Results and Discussion that will be fine, but there is not a real discussion on paper.
There is not a discussion mentioning the interaction of the different elements, and the possible implications for diet or intake by the population. There is no information about the accumulation of some HM’s in each of the crops. Is there a difference in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in the different areas where the agricultural crops were growing? There is no discussion of the possibility for conditions that in the future could change year to year, how could impact those regions and the crops. That’s why is so important to know the soil characteristics at the moment. There is also difference in the surface and the sub-surface where the crops are cultivated. Tendencies for water to wash out the crops the same in the different regions? I was surprise also to do not find that particular data about the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in your previous paper addressing the same region Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8329; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168329
Within the text there is no differentiation between toxic or pollutants heavy metals, in comparison, with the essential ones, like zinc, nickel.
The references are cited in different manners. For example, some references mentioned all the names, in line 457 reference 20, only capital letters are written after the first author. The journals are written all in capitals or the first word with a capital letter and others with each word in upper case letter. It must all be cited the same.
Line 537. Chinese / instead of Chianese
There are many papers in Chinese, there are also some English papers that could have some important information, for example Xu, D., Shen, Z., Dou, C. et al. Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patterns. Sci Rep 12, 9211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13140-1
There are missing papers that talk about heavy metal accumulation in each of the crops used; there are many in wheat and corn, but not many in potatoes and leeks.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments below in red color. We invited native English speakers to modify the language.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:
Is there an account for the translocation factor from root to above ground tissues? Transfer factor.
Response: Transfer factor was not calculated since this paper is focus on the accumulation of HMs on the edible parts of crops, no sampling and analysis of plant roots were conducted during the sampling process.
Point 2:
Line 18. soils /not soils
Response: Combining with line 18, we think what you implying is soil / not soils, we changed crops’ tissues and soils into crop tissue and soil.
Point 3:
Line 20. do your mean source that contributes to the contaminants? attributes?
Response: The exact meaning of line 20 is to determine the type of source that contributes to the contaminants. To avoid ambiguity, we changed attributes into types.
Point 4:
Lines 28, 279, 300, 303, 318, 332 Wheat instead of white (several times during the paper). Table 8 and 9
Response: We changed all white into wheat which need to be modified.
Point 5:
Line 29, 309, 330, 363,381. Accumulation instead of enrichment (many times in papers of biofortification, you can use that word, because you purposely are adding in the experiments a certain element of desire that you would like to accumulate in a tissue). Also, some papers used specific enrichment factor if you are measuring the amount of HM’s in certain areas. In your sentences, you mention that there is a presence of HM’s in those areas.
Response: We changed all enrichment into bio-accumulation which you mentioned and others which need.
Point 6:
Line. 30-32 Change paragraph, since this sentence is referring to a graph results, the reader will not understand the meaning in this paragraph.
Response: Since abstract is required in a single paragraph and this park is important, this sentence cannot be another paragraph or be deleted. Maintain the existing format is the best solution we can think of.
Point 7:
Line 50. The same " were accumulated on the surface" instead enrich.
Response: We changed enriched into accumulated
Point 8:
Line 51. What do you mean when you said jointly? foreign HM's?
Response: To avoid ambiguity, we changed jointly affected by many factors into affected by the combined factors.
Point 9:
The introduction does not bring enough information of the possible sources of contaminants (industries) that could bring some of the drainage into the river basin. Also, there is no indication of the importance of those crops for the community. Later, in your materials and methods you add a little bit of more information that should be in the introduction.
Response: We added more references to provide a more detailed description on the importance of those crops for the community.
Point 10:
Line 59. Should expand much more about the possible toxicity for humans as well for plants if in contact with poisonous HM’s.
Response: We added more references to provide a more detailed description of the risks of each heavy metal to human health.
Point 11:
Line 111. In materials and methods there is no mention at all of the species used and perhaps some varieties within those species. No, mention of the time of cultivation, how big were the plants, production of grain in wheat or corn. Also, there is not description or physicochemical data of the soils found in the crop systems. Many factors like pH and electroconductivity may also affect the bioconcentration into the tissues of HM’s.
Response: We responded to this point along with point 25.
And this paper focus on the study of bioaccumulation patterns within 4 different soil-crop systems without exploring the influencing factors. However, your suggestion has given us great inspiration, and we will pay attention to the influencing factors in future research.
Point 12:
You could fuse table 5 and 6.
Response: We fused table 5 and 6, deleted table 6, and modified the numbering of subsequence tables.
Point 13:
Line 200. the word exceedance ???
Response: We changed exceedance into excessive rate.
Point 14:
In the tables and graphs, the way that you described heavy metals is always different, why there is not a consistency in keeping the order through all document?
Response: We unified the order of heavy metals descriptions in tables, figures, and main text as follows: Cu, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cr, Cd, As, Hg. For the convenience of description, the order of figure 3 and 6 has not been adjusted.
Point 15:
Line 212. Table 5 and 6 perhaps could be fused, adding those two values from table 6 into table 5.
Response: We fused table 5 and 6, deleted table 6, and modified the numbering of subsequence tables. (Mentioned at point 12)
Point 16:
Lines 231, 251,259,288,374. Do not begin a sentence with a chemical symbol, it may mislead the reader. for example, you might indicate As mentioned before... / versus As the arsenic element. Begin by the whole name of by an article (an /a/the)
Response: We changed chemical symbol of As which is easily mislead the reader, and keep the other chemical symbols as they were for they are not easily misleading.
Point 17:
Line 240. inhomogeneous /non-homogeneous
Response: We changed inhomogeneous into non-homogeneous.
Point 18:
Line 254. Table 7. You indicated the correlation meaning ** and *** but not * one, what is the value for just one indicated in the table?
Response: We removed the excess *, and the accurate interpretation of Table 7 is as follows:
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Point 19:
Line 273. What papers support your statement that wheat might have higher mercury (Hg) absorption? it is absorption, accumulation, or translocation into tissues?
Response: We changed crop into corn and added references to support.
Point 20:
Line 300. Table 8 and Table 9 (line 318), correct Corp / for Crop
Response: We changed Corp into Crop.
Point 21:
Line 273-279 All information is found in table 8, why not just mention the most important points that you want to address?
Response: We removed the content information in parentheses and retained sorting only.
Point 22:
Line 94, 280. Papers are written in past tense, "were similar" instead of are similar.
Response: We changed are into were.
Point 23:
Table 10 is cut, fix the lay out.
Response: We fixed table 10.
Point 24:
Table 8 is the same as Figure 5, just another layout.
Response: We deleted figure 5 and modified table 8
Point 25:
Line 295. You mentioned that all agricultural crops are safe. Where in your experiments did you measure the content in grain (corn and wheat) and in potatoes (tuber) and leeks (leaves), for metal content? Only examining the roots does not indicate that the HM's are not translocating into other tissues.
Response: The samples of the four crops mentioned in this paper are all edible parts of each crop and picked in peak harvest period. To avoid this ambiguity, we provided a more detailed description in the Samples and methods section:
“During sampling, the edible part of each corps was picked and supporting root soil was collected, an area of 0.2 hectares was set up as a collection unit and the chess-board or diagonal method was used to collect 20 sub samples within each unit, then equal parts were taken to form a mixed sample.”
Point 26:
Line 332. In the Pearson’s correlation table10, you indicate that *a. was not detected, you need to modify the indication, because only * (doesn’t have any meaning) and *a, only the a is visible for mercury (Hg)
Response: We changed the indication as follow:
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
- Not detected, unable to calculate
Point 27:
Line 491. Province instead of Probince.
Response: We changed Probince into Province.
Point 28:
There is not a discussion; if you are going to combine Results and Discussion that will be fine, but there is not a real discussion on paper.
There is not a discussion mentioning the interaction of the different elements, and the possible implications for diet or intake by the population. There is no information about the accumulation of some HM’s in each of the crops. Is there a difference in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in the different areas where the agricultural crops were growing? There is no discussion of the possibility for conditions that in the future could change year to year, how could impact those regions and the crops. That’s why is so important to know the soil characteristics at the moment. There is also difference in the surface and the sub-surface where the crops are cultivated. Tendencies for water to wash out the crops the same in the different regions? I was surprise also to do not find that particular data about the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in your previous paper addressing the same region Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8329; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168329
Response:
(a) There is not a discussion
We changed 3. Results into 3. Results and discussion and we believe that the end part of each section in “results and discussion” are the content of discussion.
(b) possible implications for diet or intake by the population
We added more references to provide a more detailed description of the risks of each heavy metal to human health. (Mentioned at point 10)
(c) HMs in each of the crops
We mentioned the accumulation ability (high, medium,low) of HMs in each crop in section 3.2 The bio-accumulation of HMs in different soil-crop systems instead of ranking the accumulation in each Crop.
(d) Is there a difference in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil in the different areas where the agricultural crops were growing?
Please refer to 3.1.3 Geostatistical analysis.
(e) There is no discussion of the possibility for conditions that in the future could change year to year, how could impact those regions and the crops. There is also difference in the surface and the sub-surface where the crops are cultivated.
This paper focuses on the current bioaccumulation patterns and ecological risk on surface without prediction for the future and lock of vertical profile analysis.
(f) Tendencies for water to wash out the crops the same in the different regions
The planting areas of the four crops mentioned in the article are relatively concentrated (as shown in Figure 1c), so the impact of wash is not considered.
Point 29:
Within the text there is no differentiation between toxic or pollutants heavy metals, in comparison, with the essential ones, like zinc, nickel.
Response: We differentiated toxic or essential heavy metals in the process of add references to describe the risk of each heavy metal. (Mentioned at point 10)
Point 30:
The references are cited in different manners. For example, some references mentioned all the names, in line 457 reference 20, only capital letters are written after the first author. The journals are written all in capitals or the first word with a capital letter and others with each word in upper case letter. It must all be cited the same.
Response: We checked all references and changed all cited manners in same manners.
Coupled effects of microplastics and heavy metals on plants: Uptake, bioaccumulation, and environmental health perspectives
Point 31:
Line 537. Chinese / instead of Chianese
Response: We changed Chianese into Chinese.
Point 32:
There are many papers in Chinese, there are also some English papers that could have some important information, for example Xu, D., Shen, Z., Dou, C. et al. Effects of soil properties on heavy metal bioavailability and accumulation in crop grains under different farmland use patterns. Sci Rep 12, 9211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13140-
Response: We add this paper as reference. (Mentioned at point 10)
Point 33:
There are missing papers that talk about heavy metal accumulation in each of the crops used; there are many in wheat and corn, but not many in potatoes and leeks.
Response: We add references to complement this part. (Mentioned at point 10)
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is devoted to an important topic that receives a lot of attention around the world, and the authors certainly understand its relevance.
I have questions and some comments that I believe will improve the study and its presentation to readers.
- Perhaps you need to write letter abbreviations (such as SCS, ER, etc.), which are many in the text, - in the introduction, and not in the annotation. Because readers often see and read the article without an annotation.
- The expression "geo-accumulation" is not entirely clear. I think we are talking about accumulation, and this term is enough. The authors always say "geo-accumulation in the soil", which is the same as "accumulation in the soil", but the expression "geo-accumulation index" is correct.
- "Due to the impact of long-term agricultural activities, some HMs continue to geo-accumulate in the soil, which may have adverse effects on the agricultural production and ecological environment [34]"
What kind of impact from agricultural activities do you mean? Is it the application of fertilizers, or pesticides, irrigation, or something else? And if so, what kind of chemicals were used here?
- I think that it is possible to more specifically set and prescribe the goals and objectives of the study in the introduction.
- In some cases, authors use the term "white" (line 28, 279, tables 8, 9, 10), in others "wheat". So where was the content of heavy metals determined?
- As can be seen from the sampling map, they were taken in different parts of the basin and on different soil types. It would be appropriate here not only to provide data on the content of heavy metals in different types of soils, but also to take this into account when comparing different SCSs with each other.
In general, I think that the article can be published, the study has been carried out and the results are presented in sufficient volume, but some corrections are required.
I think it's necessary to check English, because In some cases, authors use the term "white" (line 28, 279, tables 8, 9, 10), in others "wheat".
Obviously, I think the text should be checked again.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments below in red color. We invited native English speakers to modify the language.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The study is devoted to an important topic that receives a lot of attention around the world, and the authors certainly understand its relevance.
I have questions and some comments that I believe will improve the study and its presentation to readers.
Point 1:
- Perhaps you need to write letter abbreviations (such as SCS, ER, etc.), which are many in the text, - in the introduction, and not in the annotation. Because readers often see and read the article without an annotation.
Response: We Added letter abbreviations after “4. Conclusions”.
Point 2:
The expression "geo-accumulation" is not entirely clear. I think we are talking about accumulation, and this term is enough. The authors always say "geo-accumulation in the soil", which is the same as "accumulation in the soil", but the expression "geo-accumulation index" is correct.
Response:
- We had provided explanations for “geo-accumulation” and “bio-accumulation” in the introduction section (line 42-43) of the article.
- We changed all “geo-accumulation in the soil” into “geo-accumulation”.
Point 3:
- "Due to the impact of long-term agricultural activities, some HMs continue to geo-accumulate in the soil, which may have adverse effects on the agricultural production and ecological environment [34]"
What kind of impact from agricultural activities do you mean? Is it the application of fertilizers, or pesticides, irrigation, or something else? And if so, what kind of chemicals were used here?
Response: We added 2 references to further elaborate on this statement.
Point 4:
- I think that it is possible to more specifically set and prescribe the goals and objectives of the study in the introduction.
Response: We added more references in introduction in order it is more specifically set and prescribe the goals and objectives of the study.
Point 5:
- In some cases, authors use the term "white" (line 28, 279, tables 8, 9, 10), in others "wheat". So where was the content of heavy metals determined?
Response: We reviewed the entire paper and changed all white into wheat.
Point 6:
- As can be seen from the sampling map, they were taken in different parts of the basin and on different soil types. It would be appropriate here not only to provide data on the content of heavy metals in different types of soils, but also to take this into account when comparing different SCSs with each other.
Response: We added types of soils in Geostatistical analysis.
In general, I think that the article can be published, the study has been carried out and the results are presented in sufficient volume, but some corrections are required.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that it is possible to publish the article in this author's version.
