Occurrence of Radionuclides and Hazardous Elements in the Transboundary River Basin Kyrgyzstan–Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General: This manuscript entitled “Occurrence of Radionuclides and Hazardous Elements in the Transboundary River Basin Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan” provides a general database reporting the presence of trace elements and radionuclides in the river basin. The authors presented a great effort to prepare this manuscript, however, the reviewer has some queries about this paper. I suggest that this manuscript can be acceptable with major revision. Other comments are as follows;

-      I would strongly suggest checking this manuscript by English experts.

-      The abstract should be improved by including more numerical data.

-      The introduction section is long and the authors extended the introduction section with too much information about the transboundary river basin, which can be shortened. I would suggest the authors to extend the introduction with the necessities and major objectives of this study.

-      There is a lack of extensive literature review in this paper. Authors need to improve the introduction section by citing several published literature, which contains several information. I would suggest the authors to do an extensive literature review (cited) and improve the introduction section.

-      The flow of writing in ascending paragraphs in the introduction should be connected with each other. What are the limitations of previous studies and why this study is important? Also, the specific objectives should be more intensified according to the research gaps in this field. It should be clarified by the authors.

-      Please cite the references properly. It looks that the citations are placed inappropriately. Double-check the entire manuscript.

-      Line 188-191: Rewrite this sentence for better understanding to readers.

-      The title for “Results and discussion” section is missing in this manuscript. Also, subsections of this sections should be properly numbered.

-      Figures 1 and 2 could be combined to make only one Figure. Two Figures regarding the geological maps are not necessary to present in the manuscript. Similarly, Figures 3(a) and 3(b) should be placed within one Figure and write only one figure caption.

-      Please change the unit from µg/l or Bq/l to µg/L or Bq/L in entire manuscript (also in Figures).

-      Line 312: table 1 -----à Table 1.

-      Is Figure 9 produced from the data obtained in the current study or referred from previously published literature? Please clarify.

-      The discussion needs to be extended and the conclusion section could be shortened.

 

-      Did the authors investigate any correlations (or statistical analysis) between the concentration in river water, sediment, and soil for different elements (water concentration vs soil concentration vs sediment concentration and also between different elements)? If the authors add the correlation data to this manuscript, then it will strengthen the quality of this paper and more scientific. Otherwise, this would be just a data report. Please consider it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached list of responses

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS introduce the problem of increasing trace elements and radioactive elements in the Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan basin. It is pointed out that irrigated agriculture in the region depends on these water systems and there are security risks. Through the sampling and analysis of the soil, sediment and water body along the river system, clear and accurate research data are given to help to better assess the safety of local water bodies and radioactive safety. However, there are still some problems that need to be carefully reviewed and modified.

(1)  The demonstration of the abstract is not clear enough. The authors may combine the two paragraphs into one, and reduce the background introduction and put more focus on the research results.

(2) The keywords, too general word should not be used. It is suggested to remove "water".

(3) I suggest put the third part and the fourth part together as one content: experimental results

(4) There is a problem with the article structure, (1) Without the fifth part, it directly jumps to the sixth part. (2) please refer to the template of the journal for the right format of the MS.

(5) It is suggested to add more demonstration about the purpose of the research, and explore the degree of potential harm to human body of harmful elements

(6) In Conclusions, I suggest the authors highlight the key points and clarify the harmful degree of the experimental results and the possible chain effects.

(7)  It is recommended that a brief analysis should be made about the hypothesis mentioned in line 306. these harmful elements may have entered the stream as a result of tailings from the combined miner leaching into groundwater.

(8) There are some format problems in the MS, for example, Line 62, [2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12], should [2-12]? Please recheck them.

(9) I suggest the authors reduce the length of Section Introduction. Some too general background information can be removed from this section.

(10) For Materials and Methods, it should be divided into some subsection to make this section more readable.

(11) For Figure 3. two figures should be merged into one and used one figure legend, not separate two.

(12) For Table 1. please correct the unit “l” to “L”. also other incorrect units in the whole MS.

(13) For Line 343, 4. Shu River basin in the area of the Kamyshanovskoye field, the results are suggested to be separated into several parts to make it clear to read and understand.

(14) For Conclusions, the authors need rewrite this part. Some demonstrations (for example, Line 407-411) are not suitable in this part, and can be removed to Section Discussion. Also, please consider to make the length of this part suitable.

(15) For References, some mistakes for the format can be found. Please recheck the MS carefully. 

Author Response

Please see attached list of responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper monitors and assesses the water contamination, including trace elements and natural radionuclides, in 11 transboundary rivers of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The result show that all of the studied rivers have detectable levels of trace elements, metals and radionuclide pollution. According to these results, the authors point out the direction of further work, including how to document these hazardous elements and radionuclides for govern. The whole study is interesting and significative. The sample source is very extensive and data analysis seems to be reasonable. I recommend it to publish in Water.

 

Some minor issues:

page 4 line 170: "Assessment of the degree of soil and sediment pollution was by comparing measured..." This sentence should be rewritten.

page 4 line 178: The i in MACi and Ci should use italic.

page 4 line 176: The formula should be numbered. The MAC in MACi should use Roman type.

page 5 line 181: 0,3 should be changed to 0.3.

page 6 line 226: The Figure 3(a) and 3(b) should be merged.

 

The format of Reference should stay the same. Some reference have Volume no., but other reference only have issue. 

Author Response

Please see attached list of responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Тhe article reflects the results of the authors on a study of contamination with radionuclides and hazardous elements in the Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan transboundary river basin. My initial impression was that original data would be shown and discussed, but as the presentation progressed, it became clear that the authors' previously published data, interpreted differently, were summarized. Although the authors cite the articles in question (numbers 43 and 47 in the reference list) where the data were published, this is not reflected in the introduction section.

My first and most important insistence to the authors is to include at the end of the introduction, which can be shortened, a paragraph indicating that this article summarizes the authors' previous research on pollution in the area, but the ecological assessment is based on an individual (Ci/MAC,) and common (1/n(SCi/MACi) contamination index of metals, but not on the “Limiting hazard index” as in the previous works. Further, the dependence of the isotopic ratio of U-234 / U-238 to the concentration of uranium from all sampling locations is shown. Other new moments, if any, should also be indicated.

The Materials and Methods section may then be omitted, but any other subsection should indicate which metals were analyzed by which method and apparatus (manufacturer's model) and which analytical standard was used.

The pollution indices can be calculated for both water and soil not only for surface water.

The concentration of a large number of elements has been analyzed in soils, sediments and water. But the figures show only a part of them. It is not clear why.

Table 1 is also redundant. Figure 6 is sufficient.

Author Response

Please see attached list of responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a great effort to revise this manuscript. However, I found it very difficult to read and review the revised version of the manuscript (due to the pdf file being modified with several colors and not uploading another separate clean manuscript). I do not understand the revised version of the manuscript. The numbering for each subsection and each figure should be rechecked, as I found Figure 88 (see Page 15). There are several Figure 3. What is the Figure number on pages 8-11? Furthermore, authors must write the "Response to Reviewer" letter in detail (by specifying all changes made after revision, the line to line with highlighting them). But they have just answered directly, which is not considered a proper response.

So, I would like to suggest that this manuscript can be reconsidered after revision.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

At present, I have no additional comments for the revision of the MS.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors to edit the article. However, further adjustments are needed.

Leaving the pdf file in "Review" mode makes the text virtually unreadable and creates confusion.

The numbers of the figures are not clear, especially in section 3. It is not clear which figure remains and which does not - I think fig. 7 and fig. 9 are the same.

The confusion is intensified in the discussion where figures inconsistent with the text are cited.

Please, clear the file of corrections. In the responses to the reviewers, describe the corrections in details, and there, if necessary, indicate them in mode "Review"

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx