Proposal of an Initial Environmental Management and Land Use for Critical Cemeteries in Central Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper that attempts to clarify the situation of organic matter pollution from cemeteries.

In the introduction section, it is fully explained the background of the research and showed a clear purpose.

However, there is a decisive shortage in the design of the study: not only sampling in the cemeteries, but also control points should be set and similar investigations should be done at points other than the cemetery.

Due to the lack of the control point data, the conclusions presented in this paper are very confusing and the contamination status cannot be determined.

If there is physicochemical data of water quality and soil other than the cemetery in the same area, please add it. If there is no such data, please investigate again.

Author Response

REPLY to REVEWER #1

This is a very interesting paper that attempts to clarify the situation of organic matter pollution from cemeteries.

In the introduction section, it is fully explained the background of the research and showed a clear purpose.

However, there is a decisive shortage in the design of the study: not only sampling in the cemeteries, but also control points should be set and similar investigations should be done at points other than the cemetery.

Due to the lack of the control point data, the conclusions presented in this paper are very confusing and the contamination status cannot be determined.

If there is physicochemical data of water quality and soil other than the cemetery in the same area, please add it. If there is no such data, please investigate again.

R: Dear reviewer, we are extremely thankful for your comments and opinion about your impressions of our manuscript. In the one point you mention a lack of the control point data, which we have categorically to contradict as there are of course control point data outside the influence area, as mentioned various times within the article. You will certainly agree that in the current study it includes control points, which have been called “upstream samples”. Within those sites, being outside the study area and represent obviously control points, there is no influence at all from any contamination of the cemetery, as additionally has been evidenced in the downstream sampling. Without these control points / upstream samples, we would not have been able to carry this study, so the reviewer is absolutely correct to focus on the importance of control points, which we called just differently for the purpose and or definition of their location. Concluding, we hope that we clarified this observation of the constructive criticism of the reviewer, with our given indications and answer. Nonetheless, based on the comment of the reviewer, we added the expression control points in the text, highlighting that the upstream samples are taken as such.

Generally speaking, the objective of the current study was to propose a solution to the environmental and territorial problems generated by the mismanagement of cemeteries located in so-called critical areas, through the physicochemical characterization of the water and soil in the study area, the analysis of compliance with environmental regulations, the analysis of previous studies and current territorial analysis, so that the conclusions of this work are aligned with the proposed objective. Therefore, this article constitutes the first investigative document regarding the state of Ecuador's cemeteries, which is why it has been named as an initial proposal for their environmental and territorial management.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Add “cadaveric decomposition” is keywords

Page 2, line 82-86, If leachate from cemeteries is composed of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and minerals etc then how these ingredients can serve as pollutants as per your hypothesis as they enrich the soils for plant growth.

Page 2, line 87-88, unclear about leachate is high for what?

As mentioned in introduction, leachate from cemeteries mostly consists of organic compounds and dead animal carcases and litter also decomposes to give these compounds, so how they serve the purpose of pollution rather it is a fact that these compounds are recycled in the environment and support plant growth.

Page 3, line 149, as mentioned, how pH, conductivity and temperature were used to conclude that leachate from cemeteries as pollution source.

On what criteria, cemeteries of central highlands were selected for research.

Page 4, line 181, Why physicochemical parameters of water in cemetery 4 were not analyzed.

Page 4, line 182, two simple random samples are not enough to give significant results for making conclusion. Systematic sampling with respect to area of cemeteries with multiple samples could give more reliable and representative results.

Page 5, line 186, the author needs to justify why he took soil samples only in dry season and not in rainy season for making comparison and to have more reliable data. Samples numbers are not mentioned.

Page 5, line 2019, use full form of TULAS.

Page 5, line 210, give details how you have performed comparison for territorial analysis.

Represent the BOD, COD and DO results graphically and compare them with standard values.

Draw complete layout (sketch) for your research work i.e. how and from where you have taken samples and how you have analyzed them Give maps, layouts, 3-D views for flow/leeching of contaminants.

Page 5, line 230, in Table 1, arrange the parameters of rainy and dry seasons in front of each other by generating more columns for reader’s clarity.

Page 6, line 236, the opposite effect observed in Chillogallo cemetery is justified with respect to time but you have not mentioned the time at which the samples were being taken. Mention the sampling time for correlation and comparison.

In Results and Discussion Part Figure 2, BOD and COD values for Chilligallo cemetery varies opposite to each other but BOD and COD are directly correlated with each other normally i.e. if BOD increases, COD also increases. Justify please.

In figure 2, out of 3 critical cemeteries, BOD and COD values of only Chillogallo cemetery increases significantly at downstream in rainy season but for other two cemeteries it is decreasing downstream or increasing minutely which is not supporting your hypothesis.

Page 7, line 263-265, why such a site was selected for sampling where there is a chance of interference due to discharge pipe.

Author Response

 

REPLY to REVIEWER #2

1. Add “cadaveric decomposition” is keywords

R: . It is more than accepted and hereby accomplished, thank you for that suggestion.

2. Page 2, line 82-86, If leachate from cemeteries is composed of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and minerals etc then how these ingredients can serve as pollutants as per your hypothesis as they enrich the soils for plant growth.

R:  Obvious observation and comment, which certainly is more than welcome. Any excess component implies contamination. This is explained in detail on page 2 on lines 82-85.

3. Page 2, line 87-88, unclear about leachate is high for what?

R: Good point, we now clarified this question. The values were contextualized and displayed in percentages. It is explained on page 2, line 86-90.

4. As mentioned in introduction, leachate from cemeteries mostly consists of organic compounds and dead animal carcasses and litter also decomposes to give these compounds, so how they serve the purpose of pollution rather it is a fact that these compounds are recycled in the environment and support plant growth.

R:  Very accepted remark. Again, any excess component implies obvious contamination. It is explained that the materials generated, apart from organic matter, can be chlorine, formaldehyde, heavy metals and other chemical elements used in funeral practices. This is explained extensively on page 2 on lines 84-90.

5. Page 3, line 149, as mentioned, how pH, conductivity and temperature were used to conclude that leachate from cemeteries as pollution source.

R: Thanks a lot for that, its our bet. It has been a spelling mistake. It is “nine”, not “none”. Now we wrote it in numbers too. It is mentioned on page 4 line 154.

6. On what criteria, cemeteries of central highlands were selected for research.

R: Well, there are many arguments to select this site, of which may the most fundamental has been that it is adjacent to Quito, the capital of the Republic of Ecuador, which has the highest population density in the country. It is explained on page 4 lines 171-173.

7. Page 4, line 181, Why physicochemical parameters of water in cemetery 4 were not analyzed.

R: Nice observation. No analysis was performed on water samples from cemetery 4 since it was determined that the soil in the area is silty loam, which implies that the pollutants are retained on the surface shore of the soil. A first-order road lies between the body of water and the hillside cut that limits the cemetery, in addition to the inaccessibility of the sample point, so it was decided that the water sample would not contribute at all to this investigation. This is explained on page 4 lines 183-188.

8. Page 4, line 182, two simple random samples are not enough to give significant results for making conclusion. Systematic sampling with respect to area of cemeteries with multiple samples could give more reliable and representative results.

R: Thanks for that, it is accepted as our own mistake, it is a writing error. Two series of water samples were carried out, the first in the rainy season (June 2021) and the second in the dry season (August 2021) with a total of 30 simple random samples, 12 samples in the rainy season and 18 samples in the dry season. . It is explained on page 5 lines 189-192.

9. Page 5, line 186, the author needs to justify why he took soil samples only in dry season and not in rainy season for making comparison and to have more reliable data. Samples numbers are not mentioned.

R: We can accept this comment or observation only partially. The objective of this study is not to make a comparison between stations, therefore it was decided to optimize resources by taking samples in the dry season because it is considered critical since there is no dissolution caused by precipitation. This is explained on page 5, line 199.

10. Page 5, line 2019, use full form of TULAS.

R: We are sorry, but unfortunately we are unable to accept this, as the complete form is already mentioned on page 5, line 216. We would like to avoid repetitions for a more fluid read of our text. We hope you understand our point of view.

11. Page 5, line 210, give details how you have performed comparison for territorial analysis.

R: Great. The territorial analysis has been detailed and therefore explained with detail on page 5, lines 221-225

12. Represent the BOD, COD and DO results graphically and compare them with standard values.

R: Done. Your wish is our order, standard values have been placed in figure 2.

13. Draw complete layout (sketch) for your research work i.e. how and from where you have taken samples and how you have analyzed them Give maps, layouts, 3-D views for flow/leeching of contaminants.

R: Unfortunately, we are unable to accept this, as it is not the objective of the research at all to produce or generate layouts or 3d views for flow. We hope that you may accept that

14. Page 5, line 230, in Table 1, arrange the parameters of rainy and dry seasons in front of each other by generating more columns for reader’s clarity.

R: Great, we changed and improved therefore the table

15. Page 6, line 236, the opposite effect observed in Chillogallo cemetery is justified with respect to time but you have not mentioned the time at which the samples were being taken. Mention the sampling time for correlation and comparison.

R: Accomplished, that is explained now on page 6, lines 252-254.

16. In Results and Discussion Part Figure 2, BOD and COD values for Chillogallo cemetery varies opposite to each other but BOD and COD are directly correlated with each other normally i.e. if BOD increases, COD also increases. Justify please.

R: Once again, we are very thankful for this comment and observation as a typo was made and it has been corrected.

17. In figure 2, out of 3 critical cemeteries, BOD and COD values of only Chillogallo cemetery increases significantly at downstream in rainy season but for other two cemeteries it is decreasing downstream or increasing minutely which is not supporting your hypothesis.

R: Good point and accepted. It is explained on lines 247 to 254.

18. Page 7, line 263-265, why such a site was selected for sampling where there is a chance of interference due to discharge pipe.

R: Accepted improvement. The sampling distance from the cemeteries to the sampling points is clarified in the methodology. It is explained on pages 5, lines 194 and 195.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

The manuscript is well written. My suggestion is only to link to the allocation of punctual bibliographic references, which will greatly improve the quality of work, with a more up-to-date perspective.

Along with reference 73, these two references could be added, also consistent:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520324437

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01879-y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987121001742

Congratulations to the authors for the manuscript.

Author Response

REPLY to REVIEWER #3

Dear authors

• The manuscript is well written. My suggestion is only to link to the allocation of punctual bibliographic references, which will greatly improve the quality of work, with a more up-to-date perspective.
• Along with reference 73, these two references could be added, also consistent:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520324437

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01879-y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987121001742

Congratulations to the authors for the manuscript.

R: First of all, we are more than pleased and honored by the comments of the reviewer and based on the reviewer´s comments, we increased the requested references.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for answering the previous comment. For water sample, it was confirmed that "upstream" was the control point for "downstream". It was difficult to read for me that from the data shown, so I wanted to know about the control points. Again, do you have control data for soil samples?

 

First, please explain the reproducibility of the data in Table 1. The data (Conductivity, DO, BOD and COD) for the rainy season in Chillogaro differ greatly in the values ​​measured twice; e.g., BOD values at downstream are 163 and 10. You need to explain why the values ​​are so different. If we allow for variability in these values, it is not possible to compare the magnitudes of the numbers in this paper.

 

p.4; 3. Study area, materials, and methods

 When explaining the place (cemetery), the place name and the place number are mixed, so please unify them or write them together; e.g., cemetery 1 (Nanegal).

 Add a description of the structure of the cemeteries and how to bury: the quality of the soil, the depth to bury the body, how many tombs there are, etc.

 Please specify the accuracy of each analysis method.

 

p.5 line 189; What kind of road is “a first-order road”?

p.5 line 203-204; For the measurement of "BOD₅", please specify the presence or absence of dilution and seeding.

p.5 line 212; Correct "PH" to "pH".

 

p.6 4. Results and discussion

 I suggest a configuration change. Show the soil analysis results first, then the water analysis results. Because the water analysis results do not appear to be influenced by the cemetery. There is little difference in the comparison of upstream and downstream analytical values, and in some cases it is even lower downstream. From this result, it cannot be said that the quality of river water is affected by the cemetery. On the other hand, the soil analysis results show an increase in pH and an increase in the amount of organic matter in the middle layer (1.5 m), which I agree with the results indicating the influence of the cemetery. Therefore, the conclusion was that "the soil had a contamination from the cemetery, but no clear effect on the river water" and "the contamination effect on the river water and groundwater needs more detailed investigation". I think it's better. In addition, there is no data on the Pintag cemetery for water samples. The result with all the data should be described first.

 

p.6 Table 1

 Change "," (comma) representing the decimal point to "."(point).

 Align the digits of significant figures.

 

p.6 line 255; Please give a concrete example of "anthropogenic activity". BOD and COD values ​​seem to be considerably higher than normal river water (2-8mg / L). Perhaps domestic wastewater is flowing directly in, but please describe such a situation so that the reader can understand it.

 

p.7 Figure 2

 Figure 2 overlaps with the data in Table 1 and is not needed. Please enter the average value of the analysis and standard value of each parameter in Table 1.

What is the " standard value"? (For agricultural use?)

 In the figure of (f), correct "Before" and "After" to "Upstream" and "Downstream".

 

p.7 lines282-286; Which cemetery is the explanation? Is it Cutuglagua?

p.7 lone 286; Please correct "figure 2-d" to "Figure 2 (d)". The same applies to p.8. line 307, line 313 and line 316.

 

p.8 line297; Is the reason for "high contamination", because it exceeds the standard value?

p.8 lines 303-306; You are discussing the increase in BOD, COD and conductivity in Chillogallo and Nanegal, but the increase in BOD and conductivity in Chillogallo and the increase in BOD, COD and conductivity in Nanegal are not statistically significant (t-test). Considering the accuracy of the analysis method, it is reasonable to assume that there is no difference between the upstream and downstream ​​at these points.

In addition, consider why self-cleaning was not working in Chillogallo and Nanegal.

 

p.8 lines 320-321; Please explain specifically what the "expected behavior" is.

 

p.9 Figure 3

 Correct the unit of conductivity in the figure of (b).

 

p.9 limes 329-341; There is a description about vegetation, but the situation differs greatly depending on whether it is native or cultivated. If it is cultivated, fertilizer may be added.

 You think that nasturtium and grass act as biofilters, but are they growing in contact with wastewater?

 I don't know what the description of butternut squash is. How does the space and direct sunlight affect contamination from the cemetery?

p.9 line 330; Please specify the specific value of "the limit of the quality".

 

p.9 line 342-p.10 line 357; This part of the description does not include the results obtained in this study and should be stated in the Introduction.

 

p.10 5. Conclusions

 Please change the conclusion based on the above points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper shall be accepted for publication after the following revisions.

1. Please revise the figure/map showing the sampling sites and locations of cemeteries.

2. Please recheck the paper for any grammatical mistakes and typos.

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Please revise the figure/map showing the sampling sites and locations of cemeteries.

R: The observation is partially accepted for the following reason. The points plotted on the map have been generated with coordinates of the centroids of the cemeteries. The size of the numbers that locate them is increased. Due to the size of the scale, it is not possible to visualize the sampling points in even more detail.

2. Please recheck the paper for any grammatical mistakes and typos.

R: This is a worthwhile observation, which is obviously accepted. The written part was revised again and errors were corrected where we have encountered the one or the other grammatical mistake, expression, typo or other incongruencies of our English.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read your response and the revised manuscript.

 

First, please add the values and descriptions from the cited references to the text.

This article contains many references in languages other than English. Unfortunately, I am not able to read those languages (Spanish). If you are submitting a paper to an international journal, you should make sure that it can be understood by many readers around the world. Is it possible for international readers to access the information they need by only viewing the references? For example, you responded to my previous comment 1 by saying that you "cited TULAS twice", but only the conductivity (200 us/cm) is given as the reference value for soil. You do not give any other soil pH or organic matter standard values. The land use conflict and PUGS rules described on p. 10 are also incomprehensible just from reading the text.

I have the impression that this paper is written for domestic readers. If it is for domestic readers, wouldn't it be better to submit it to a domestic journal? If you are submitting to an international journal, you should add a discussion of international standards and comparisons with similar studies in other countries.

 

p.3-5 lines 180-190: As I mentioned in my previous comment, please standardize the description of cemetery names. For consistency with the Results and Discussion section, it would be better to use only the names and remove the numbers.

 

p.5 line 196: Correct “table 1” to “Table 1”.

 

p.5 lines 208-241: As in the Results and Discussion section, the description of the soil should come first and the water analysis method should come later.

 

p.6 4. Results and Discussion

Please let me confirm about the survey on soil. The following three points:

1. You performed a vertical (depth) chemical analysis to determine the effect of exudates from the remains.

 Normally, when investigating the impact from something buried in the soil, the depth of burial is used as the standard, and the area shallower and deeper than that is investigated. At the time I read the first manuscript, there was no description of the burial depth of the remains, but I assumed that the bodies were at a depth of 1.5 meters. This is because the vertical survey of the soil had been done at 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5 meters. However, in Response 4 you stated that the bodies were buried 2.5 meters below the surface. If so, shouldn't you be investigating deeper than 2.5 meters to reveal the effect of leachate?

 Also, the description of the depth of burial of the bodies should be clearly stated in the text.

2. Next, you observed the vegetation for horizontal (buffer zone) effects.

 Why did you choose to focus only on vegetation on the ground surface as a horizontal survey?

Starting from the cemetery, it should also be possible to do chemical analysis (pH, conductivity) of the soil at both near and far points. If there is a clear difference between the results of chemical analysis near and far from the cemetery, it will be clear how far away from the cemetery the buffer zone should be set.

 And, You said, " Most of the soils analyzed tend to be acidic except the Chillogallo soil and whose conductivity value is at the limit of the quality (200 us/cm) criterion established by TULAS [61], being between light and moderately saline soil [57], which could affect the presence of sensitive vegetation [66]"(p.7. lines 264-267). Therefore, a comparison for the vegetation should be made between Chillogallo and other sites where pH was high, and between at Chillogallo and Cutuglagua where conductivity was high and Nanegal and Pintag where conductivity was low.

3. In light of the above 2 points, please clarify your hypothetical mechanism of soil contamination: would leachate rise from a body buried at a depth of 2.5 meters and affect the ground surface? Or will it cause soil and groundwater contamination in lower layers?

 

p.6 line 243: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

 

p.6 lines 243-244: Add Chillogallo into “the pH values of the Nanegal, Pintag and Cutuglagua cemetery”.

 

p.6 line 246: Specify the specific values listed in TULAS.

 

p.6 line 249: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

 

p.6 line 250: Specify the specific values listed in TULAS.

 

p.6 line 252: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

 

p.6 lines 252-253: What is “cement plants”?

 

p.6 line 260: What does "a previous movement of the soil" mean? Do you have any evidence for such a movement?

 

p.8-9 Table 1, Figure 3 and Comment 2:

The Chillogallo data in the rainy season were found to be heavily anthropogenically polluted. Such values cannot be treated in the same way as other values. They should be excluded. It is still OK to put them in Table 1 as reference values, but putting them in Figure 3 is problematic. Remove the data of Chillogallo for the rainy season from Figure 3.

 

p.9 line 331: Correct “figure 3” to “Figure 3”.

 

p.9-p.10 and comment 19:

In your comment 19, you answered " That is why the document does not present a definitive conclusion that the cemetery is a source of contamination. ", but in the text, you wrote " On the other hand, the Chillogallo and Nanegal cemeteries demonstrate an increase in conductivity, BOD5 and COD values, which may be attributed to the filtration of pollutants from those cemeteries."(lines 349-351), which is a contradiction.

 

Revise the abstract and conclusion to match the changes in the text.

Author Response

 

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1

1. First, please add the values and descriptions from the cited references to the text.

R: A very accepted  observation. The entire manuscript has been revised and corrected in this respect.

 

2. This article contains many references in languages other than English. Unfortunately, I am not able to read those languages (Spanish). If you are submitting a paper to an international journal, you should make sure that it can be understood by many readers around the world. Is it possible for international readers to access the information they need by only viewing the references? For example, you responded to my previous comment 1 by saying that you "cited TULAS twice", but only the conductivity (200 us/cm) is given as the reference value for soil. You do not give any other soil pH or organic matter standard values. The land use conflict and PUGS rules described on p. 10 are also incomprehensible just from reading the text.

 

1. The observation is partially accepted. However, several references of international and bibliographic regulations are increased such as those from Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Water Quality Criteria of Science Direct, besides others.

 

A Land Use Management Plan (PUGS) is part of the Territorial Ordering Plan, which are tools of each municipality, state or province in each country. Although it is true that it is a local application tool that has been conducted based on geography, population, nature, economic activities, among others, the criterion is and will remain universal.

 

3. I have the impression that this paper is written for domestic readers. If it is for domestic readers, wouldn't it be better to submit it to a domestic journal? If you are submitting to an international journal, you should add a discussion of international standards and comparisons with similar studies in other countries.

 

R: Well, the journals guideline is desiring such types of manuscripts, where case studies are able to be presented for a broad public. This will allow comparisons with similar studies or topics. Before our work from Ecuador there has been not a single article about such topics in any international journal. Therefore, such novelty is a new piece of research offered to the world, making it a great surplus for “Sustainability” to be published and let other countries and scientists to pick from where we started in this part of the world with this kind of study. In fact, most if not almost all articles of “Sustainability” are national gems which are compared internationally.

Furthermore, although the study was performed in Ecuador, this situation presented by us has been repeated in many countries in the same way. For example, in European countries, physicochemical soil analyzes were performed in areas near ancient cemeteries, reaching high levels of bacteriological contamination. On the other hand, in China, South Africa and Nigeria, soil quality analyzes were conducted in representative cemeteries, finding contamination associated with burial practices, indicating an increase in the concentration of trace metals due to the use of coffins with painted metal ornaments or processed wood. Likewise, in Latin America, the environmental impacts caused by cemeteries were exposed, finding 35 impacts on the physical environment such as quality of air, soil and surface water, with a percentage of 49.3% of environmental impact, seeing altered the quality of water and soil in the nearby sector. From the foregoing, it is evident that the contamination generated by cemeteries is a worldwide problem.

In addition, the management proposal is applicable worldwide, considering the growth of urban areas, forms of burial, funerary practices and the generation of pollution.

During the conduct of this research, little information was found at the national, regional and global levels regarding the topic developed, so the researchers consider it appropriate that this type of research be disseminated worldwide through high-impact journals, like represented by “Sustainability”.

 

4. 3-5 lines 180-190: As I mentioned in my previous comment, please standardize the description of cemetery names. For consistency with the Results and Discussion section, it would be better to use only the names and remove the numbers.

R: It is an accepted remark. The entire article was revised and changed, except on the map where the numbers are kept for a better visualization.

 

5. 5 line 196: Correct “table 1” to “Table 1”.

R: Done, thank you.

 

6. 5 lines 208-241: As in the Results and Discussion section, the description of the soil should come first and the water analysis method should come later.

R: Accomplished, the order is changed.

 

7. 6 4. Results and Discussion. Please let me confirm about the survey on soil. The following three points:
   1. You performed a vertical (depth) chemical analysis to determine the effect of exudates from the remains.

R: No, a chemical analysis was not performed to determine the effects of leachate from the remains. The objective of the research was to measure pH, organic matter content and electrical conductivity in order to determine the possible trend of soil contamination generated by the influence of cemeteries.

 

1. Normally, when investigating the impact from something buried in the soil, the depth of burial is used as the standard, and the area shallower and deeper than that is investigated. At the time I read the first manuscript, there was no description of the burial depth of the remains, but I assumed that the bodies were at a depth of 1.5 meters. This is because the vertical survey of the soil had been done at 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5 meters. However, in Response 4 you stated that the bodies were buried 2.5 meters below the surface. If so, shouldn't you be investigating deeper than 2.5 meters to reveal the effect of leachate?

R: It is accepted, the wording was improved and the reason for the decision of the depths of soil samples is clarified. Lines 201-206

1. Also, the description of the depth of burial of the bodies should be clearly stated in the text.

R: Good point, therefore the entire article was reviewed again in this sense.

 

8. Next, you observed the vegetation for horizontal (buffer zone) effects.

R: The group did not focus at all on investigating the vegetation buffer zone. In the field, it was observed that none of the cemeteries have a buffer zone. That is why within the conclusion the implementation of a vegetation buffer zone is proposed.

 

9. Why did you choose to focus only on vegetation on the ground surface as a horizontal survey?

R: The objective of the investigation was not to focus on the vegetation surrounding the cemeteries. The article describes the situation found in the field work and mentions as a possibility the performance of this vegetation as a biofilter.

 

10. Starting from the cemetery, it should also be possible to do chemical analysis (pH, conductivity) of the soil at both near and far points. If there is a clear difference between the results of chemical analysis near and far from the cemetery, it will be clear how far away from the cemetery the buffer zone should be set.

R: The statement presented is viable for the continuation of this investigation. However, in this phase of the study the objective was not to determine the buffer zone, but rather to see the trend of possible contamination.

 

11. And, you said, " Most of the soils analyzed tend to be acidic except the Chillogallo soil and whose conductivity value is at the limit of the quality (200 us/cm) criterion established by TULAS [61], being between light and moderately saline soil [57], which could affect the presence of sensitive vegetation [66]"(p.7. lines 264-267). Therefore, a comparison for the vegetation should be made between Chillogallo and other sites where pH was high, and between at Chillogallo and Cutuglagua where conductivity was high and Nanegal and Pintag where conductivity was low

 

R: It is accepted. The requested comparisons have been made, which are found in lines 276-295 of the manuscript, the values of the criteria established in the TULAS have been standardized, with the international regulations found.

For a better understanding, a summary of the physicochemical values of the soil samples has been made, which is indicated in Table 1.

 

Table 1. Physicochemical parameters of soil samples taken in critical cemeteries

 

Cementerio	Depth	pH	pH Clasification	Conductividad (dS/m) *10-3	%MO	OM Clasification
Chillogallo	Superficial	7,3	Neutral	182,6	5,6	Light
	Medium	7,6	Moderately alkaline	97,9	7,1	Medium
	Deep	7,2	Neutral	78,7	5,7	Light
Nanegal	Superficial	5,7	Moderately acidic	39,2	6,8	Medium
	Medium	4,8	Strongly acidic	64,8	4,5	Light
	Deep	5,4	Moderately acidic	57,1	4,6	Light
Cutuglagua	Superficial	5,8	Moderately acidic	199	13,1	High
	Medium	5,3	Moderately acidic	83,5	13,5	High
	Deep	5,1	Moderately acidic	43,1	6,6	Medium
Pintag	Superficial	6,6	Neutral	92,5	8,4	Medium
	Medium	5,7	Moderately acidic	74,4	8,7	Medium
	Deep	6,3	Moderately acidic	69,1	9,6	Medium

OM: Organic Matter

 

12. In light of the above 2 points, please clarify your hypothetical mechanism of soil contamination: would leachate rise from a body buried at a depth of 2.5 meters and affect the ground surface? Or will it cause soil and groundwater contamination in lower layers?

R: Assuming that the corpses are buried at a depth of 2m, the mechanism considered was infiltration by gravity, which can cause contamination in the soil and groundwater.

 

13. 6 line 243: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

R: Nice catch. The entire article was revised and corrected.

 

14. 6 lines 243-244: Add Chillogallo into “the pH values of the Nanegal, Pintag and Cutuglagua cemetery”.

R: Done.

 

15. 6 line 246: Specify the specific values listed in TULAS.

R: It is accepted. The values indicated by the Tulas were placed in parentheses. Values range from 6-8.

 

16. 6 line 249: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

R: Nice catch. The entire article was revised and corrected.

 

17. 6 line 250: Specify the specific values listed in TULAS.

R: Obviously accepted. The values indicated by the Tulas were placed in parentheses. The values range between 6-8, which are confirmed by the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Water Quality Criteria of Science Direct.

 

18. 6 line 252: Correct “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

R: Nice catch again. The entire article was revised and corrected.

 

19. 6 lines 252-253: What is “cement plants”?

R: Sorry, it was a typo, which is now corrected.

 

20. 6 line 260: What does "a previous movement of the soil" mean? Do you have any evidence for such a movement?

A soil movement (surface layer coverage with deep layer) is presumed at the Chillogallo cemetery sample point since both the pH and the organic matter do not have the expected behavior, that is, an increase in organic matter and acidity is observed in the middle layer, and practically constant values in the superficial and deep layers.

 

21. 8-9 Table 1, Figure 3 and Comment 2: The Chillogallo data in the rainy season were found to be heavily anthropogenically polluted. Such values cannot be treated in the same way as other values. They should be excluded. It is still OK to put them in Table 1 as reference values, but putting them in Figure 3 is problematic. Remove the data of Chillogallo for the rainy season from Figure 3.

R: Unfortunately, we do not share such comment. The research team considers that all values should be shown because these values allowed identifying anthropogenic influence at the time of sampling, forcing the team to modify the sampling methodology to avoid interference, which is justified in the manuscript.

 

22. 9 line 331: Correct “figure 3” to “Figure 3”.

R: Correct. The entire article was revised and corrected.

 

23. 9-p.10 and comment 19: In your comment 19, you answered " That is why the document does not present a definitive conclusion that the cemetery is a source of contamination. ", but in the text, you wrote " On the other hand, the Chillogallo and Nanegal cemeteries demonstrate an increase in conductivity, BOD₅ and COD values, which may be attributed to the filtration of pollutants from those cemeteries."(lines 349-351), which is a contradiction.

R:  It is accepted. Improved wording by changing “may” to “could”

 

24. Revise the abstract and conclusion to match the changes in the text.

R:  Accomplished. The abstract and the conclusion are aligned.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for answering my comment and question. I was able to correct some of my misunderstandings. With this revision of the paper, I think your arguments will be accepted.

 

Please make the following minor corrections：

p.5 line 232; About “temperature (T)”, is the "T" a symbol? If it is a unit, use ℃ or ℉.

 

p.6 lines 258-262; You cite the Ecuadorian Technical Standard and Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (2 dS/m) as the reference value for conductivity, which is 10 times higher than the TULAS value of 200 uS/cm that you have been citing. The statement " at the limit of such range" needs to be corrected.

 

p.7 Figure 2 (b); Correct the "*" (asterisk) in the unit to "x" (multiply).

 

p.7 line 292; What is the “10.9%”? Does it mean that if OM value exceeds 10.9%, it is included in the "high"?

Author Response

 

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1

1. 5 line 232; About “temperature (T)”, is the "T" a symbol? If it is a unit, use ℃ or ℉.

R: Great catch. The entire article was revised and corrected for this issue/point.

2. 6 lines 258-262; You cite the Ecuadorian Technical Standard and Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (2 dS/m) as the reference value for conductivity, which is 10 times higher than the TULAS value of 200 uS/cm that you have been citing. The statement " at the limit of such range" needs to be corrected.
3. Thanks a lot for your observation. Hereby, the research group revised the TULAS (reference 60), the Ecuadorian Environmental Technical Standard for Soil (reference 65), Technical Standard of the Metropolitan Ordinance of the Metropolitan District of Quito No. 404 - Resolution No. 002-2014-SA (reference 66), and the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (reference 62), finding values in reference 60 of some 200 uS/m, in reference 65 and 66 of some 2 mm hos/cm and in reference 62 of 2 dS/m, where a typing error is clearly noticeable. Then the values considered are those of reference 62, 65, and 66, which are equivalent.

It has been referenced in the document as described above.

4. 7 Figure 2 (b); Correct the "*" (asterisk) in the unit to "x" (multiply).

R: Great catch again. The entire article was revised and corrected for this issue/point.

5. 7 line 292; What is the “10.9%”? Does it mean that if OM value exceeds 10.9%, it is included in the "high"?

R: Yes, indeed. According to the SERMANAT regulations (Figure 1), which was used to interpret the results of this study, the soils sampled (volcanic soils) are in the range of 6.1-10.9%, which correspond to the classification of average organic matter, while with 11-16% they would be classified as soils with high organic matter content.

 

Fig 1. Interpretation of Organic Matter Results

	Organic Matter  %
Type	Volcanic soils	Non - Volcanic soils
Very low	< 4,0	< 0,5
Low	4,1 - 6,0	0,6 - 1,5
Medium	6,1 - 10,9	1,6 - 3,5
High	11,0 - 16,0	3,6 - 6,0
Very high	> 16,1	> 6,0