Comparing the Uptake of Arsenic by Barley and Oats Growing in a Semiarid Area Irrigated with Either Groundwater or Treated Wastewater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled : “Comparing the uptake of arsenic by barley and oats growing in a semiarid area and irrigated with either groundwater or treated wastewater”, submitted by the authors Ochoa-Rivero et al investigated the  As, Cd, and Pb in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and oats (Avena sativa) irrigated with either groundwater (GW) or treated domestic wastewater (TWW).

The paper contains good amount of data about the selected topic ( monitoring minerals such as arsenic and others in field crops) and is if special interest for researchers within this field.  However, the novelty needs to be highlighted in the introduction, discussion and conclusion.  WHAT is the novelty of this work, I see many papers studied arsenic under saline conditions and polluted waters.

There are some things need to be addressed before the publishing of this paper:

 

1.       In the abstract:

-          You need to address the novelty issue here and importance of the study.

 

2.       The introduction part need some improvement and organization. Try to highlight the novelty and compare previous work on arsenic and other metals.

 

3.       The results and discussion sections are well written, however, I still see no novelty in the work.   

 

4.       In the materials and methods part

-          In the section 2.6. Plant analyses , please try to avoid using abbreviations in the beginning of the sentence such as “ HMs”

-           

5.       The conclusion is OK.  

 

I give you major revision.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a study of bioaccumulation and translocation of As, Pb, and Cd in barley and oats after irrigation of cultivation soil with groundwater or treated wastewater, respectively. The results are interesting, especially the difference between the two species, where As content was considerably higher in oats, together with a higher Pb level in certain plant organs. 

First of all, the title does not do justice to the work. The study goes beyond arsenic, with Pb and Cd monitoring being performed as well. I believe the title should be revised to reflect this and the discussion should be enriched to include comparisons with other studies on Pb and Cd. Right now, the discussion is overly centered strictly around As. This will enrich the manuscript more and attract interest from scientists working on Pb and Cd that peruse the literature based on paper titles alone.

Second, another criticism is that the uploaded pdf file did not have a line numbering, making my referral to exact parts of the manuscript below more difficult.

Abstract, 7th line: "each of" (reverse word order here)

Introduction, second paragraph beginning should be rephrased: "The use of treated wastewater (TWW) for irrigation, [...], practically eliminates [...]"

Page 2, 3rd line: Rephrase "A particular concern is represented by staple foods [...]" or, alternatively, "Of particular concern are staple foods [...]"

Page 2, second-to-last paragraph: Rephrase to "[...] were compiled into a review by [...]"

Same paragraph as above: "[...] in [31], which reports [...]" (which, not who)

Page 2, last paragraph: "extent to which" (not "extent that")

Page 3, first paragraph: Rephrase to "The temperature in the region starts at [...]"

Second paragraph of section 2.4: Rephrase to "The HMs were analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy and inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry [...]"

Section 2.5: "[...] nutrients determinations were carried out [...]" (not just nutrients were carried out)

DTPA acronym is not explained. What does it mean? Check also that all other acronyms used are explained at the time of their first occurrence. 

Section 2.6: re-suspended in what to reach 10 mL? Also, suspension implies that it is not a homogeneous system even after acid digestion. Is this correct? 

There should be an additional subsection on "Chemicals" in the "Materials and Methods" section, indicating vendor and purity of all chemicals used: acids, HM standards for calibration of instruments, etc.

Page 5, first line: "were performed" is more adequate that "determined"

Some of the data in the tables are not reported with the correct number of significant figures. Please address this! (e.g. 7.6 +/- 2.80)

Table 4: I do not believe Beryllium (Be) qualifies as a "heavy" metal

Section 3.3 heading: "Metal(loid)"

Conclusions, last paragraph: Why do you state: "in this order"? What is the reasoning behind this? Why is the order of cultivation of the two species (first barley, then oat) relevant on the basis of the results of this study? This aspect is not argued at all elsewhere in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

MINERALS

Manuscript Number: minerals- 2172408

Title: Comparing the uptake of arsenic by barley and oats growing in a semiarid area and irrigated with either groundwater or treated wastewater.

Article Type: Original Research Paper

 

The aim of this investigation is clear and in-line with the scope of Minerals Journal. In my opinion, this paper can therefore be suitable for publication in this journal after some minor revisions

Title

The title describes properly the content of the article.

Abstract

The abstract describes and summarizes the content of the paper in a very clear way.

 

General aspect:

 

1.- In line 100 the Authors say: “Previous studies reporting HMs content in soils of this area are scant, among them [33] for agricultural soils and [34] for stream sediments.” Could be of interest to give the concentrations of HMs in these soils. The same with the concentration of groundwater, Lines 114-115 “Groundwater in this area has a high content of naturally occurring As and fluoride (F^-) in addition to anthropogenic nitrate”

2.- In table 1, What is the LOD´s value?

3.- Maybe tables 5 and 6 could be fused in only one

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted for me