Geo-Environmental Evaluation of the Kaakia Landfill, Southwest Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Some additional and specific comments are as follows:
The researchers investigated the contamination characteristics and potential health implications of heavy metals (Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Pb, Zn) in road dust with large traffic flow in different functional areas of Yangxin County (Central China).
Presence of heavy metals in dust have been studied by many researchers for a decade. However, the current work is focused on the presence of heavy metals in human. Such study would be a benchmark for further new studies.
The present research work studied metals in humans. Metals were found in human at the safe level in the study.
Elaborate the health risk assessment method.
Conclusion part is addressing the main question posed with evidence. However, conclusion part does not require references. It is better to mention the native plants which are efficient controller of dust pollution rather than making a general statement.
References are sufficient and suitable.
Mention the full form of abbreviations used in Figure 1.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2069692
Geo-environmental Evaluation of Kaakia Landfill, Southwest Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
Point 1: Presence of heavy metals in dust have been studied by many researchers for a decade. However, the current work is focused on the presence of heavy metals in human. Such study would be a benchmark for further new studies.
Response 1: The present research did not exihbits to the heavy metals in dust.
Point 2: The present research work studied metals in humans. Metals were found in human at the safe level in the study.
Response 2: The present research did not studied metals in humans.
Point 3: Elaborate the health risk assessment method.
Response 3: The present research did not discuss the health risk assessment method.
Point 4: Conclusion part is addressing the main question posed with evidence. However, conclusion part does not require references. It is better to mention the native plants which are efficient controller of dust pollution rather than making a general statement.
Response 4: The conclusion part of the present research did not contain any references.
Point 5: References are sufficient and suitable.
Response 5: Excellent.
Point 6: Mention the full form of abbreviations used in Figure 1.
Response 6: There is no any abbreviations in Figure 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper exhibited the geo-environmental evaluation of Kaakis Landfill, and showed the potential environmental threats to human health. The overall work is relatively complete. However, some points in this paper should be explained and commented, I recommend this paper for publication in the esteemed SUSTAINABILITY before minor revision.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2069692
Geo-environmental Evaluation of Kaakia Landfill, Southwest Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:
Point 1: The introduction exhibited confusion, and lack of logic. (i) the landfills give various environmental problems, such as groundwater, soil, and atmospheric contamination. We recommend the author exhibits these environmental impacts in just one paragraph. (ii) the literature on the geo-environmental evaluation of landfills is not enough. (iii) the landfill, which is investigated in this paper, the information about the landfill should be put in a separate section or the materials and methods section. (iv) the introduction should clearly present the research purposes..
Response 1: The present research is modified as:
i) Exihibiting the environmental impacts (groundwater, soil, and atmospheric contamination) in just one paragraph: Done (lines 36-48).
ii) The literature on the geo-environmental evaluation of landfills is not enough: Done, the literature was be extended and more detailed (lines 30-157).
iii) The landfill, which is investigated in this paper, the information about the landfill should be put in a separate section or the materials and methods section: Done (lines 95-141).
vi) The introduction should clearly present the research purposes: Done (lines 142-157).
Point 2: In line 304, the author presented the annual rainfall as about 81.5 mm (over low). However, the relative humidity ranged between 3.8 to 89.2%, the humidity over 80% (humid environment), why?.
Response 2: Usually relative humidity really increases during or just after rain. As shown in Figure 8c, a total of 18 rainfall events occurred allover the full year 2019 in Makkah. The relative humidity is recorded really high through these raining days, but through the most of the year, ranged between 3.79 % to 89.20% with annual average of 35.36%, that considered an arid weather (lines 219-233).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has made a good attempt to understand the Geo-environmental Evaluation of Kaakia Landfill, Southwest Makkah, Saudi Arabia. However few comments are mentioned below:
1. Insffucient literature
2. Author has not done a detailed evaluation of the Landfill,
3. No statistical analysis is carried out.
4. Author has attempted for GPR, but he didn't do further analysis like dynamic parameters
5. Reserch component is missing in the article
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2069692
Geo-environmental Evaluation of Kaakia Landfill, Southwest Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:
Point 1: Insufficient literature.
Response 1: Done, the literature was be extended and more detailed (lines 30-157).
Point 2: Author has not done a detailed evaluation of the Landfill.
Response 2: Done, the dumping site was described in detail (lines 95-141), and the meteorological conditions, atmospheric environment, and subusrface sequence were evaluated.
Point 3: No statistical analysis is carried out.
Response 3: What is the component that need statistical analysis.
Point 4: Author has attempted for GPR, but he didn't do further analysis like dynamic parameters.
Response 4: Done, the dynamic properties of the leachate (lines 375-381).
Point 5: Research component is missing in the article .
Response 5: Done, the research component was more detailed especially in Introduction and Discussion items (lines 30-17), and (lines 339-386) respectively.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The corrections have been done accordingly.
Author Response
No required Comments from the reviewer and no extensive editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
OK
Author Response
No required Comments from the reviewer and no extensive editing of English language required
