Distribution and Source Resolution of Heavy Metals in an Electroplating Site and Their Health Risk Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes Distribution and source resolution of heavy meatls in a electro- 2 plating site and their health risk assessment. The topic is very timely, needed, and hot. It covers a clear gap, and there is a lot of research going on currently in this area. Therefore, this paper deems an excellent future reference for researchers who work in the area. The overall quality is good and meeting the minimum requirements of the journal. The content is relevant and useful for the researchers' community. However, it has many minor issues that must be fixed properly ranging from literature and lack of suitable directions etc as follows:
1. The abstract is long and doesn't communicate the problem well. And, it should present the proposed work more clearly. The abstract must summarise the performance evaluation results and improvement over competitors and/or other solutions.
2. The introduction section does not clearly describe the motivation of the research, please rewrite this section to make it clear. The introduction should be more elaborate and define contribution of authors.
3. The mathematics and equation are not clearly discussed. I suggest adding all variables into a table.
4. The conclusions section should conclude that you have achieved from the study, contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.
The paper needs rewriting and corrections. The language should be improved. Symbol naming and equations should be written with more care. Lower case and capital symbols should be unified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your comments. The comments from the anonymous reviewers are helpful for us to improve the quality of this paper. We have revised the paper accordingly. All the revised parts have been marked in red. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us so that we can follow up.
Best regards.
Lou Ziyang on behalf of all authors
Point 1: The abstract is long and doesn't communicate the problem well. And, it should present the proposed work more clearly. The abstract must summarise the performance evaluation results and improvement over competitors and/or other solutions.
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten to better convey the issue.
Point 2: The introduction section does not clearly describe the motivation of the research, please rewrite this section to make it clear. The introduction should be more elaborate and define contribution of authors.
Response 2: The introduction has been rewritten to better convey motivation, and the author's research content is mentioned in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Point 3: The mathematics and equation are not clearly discussed. I suggest adding all variables into a table.
Response 3: Variables not mentioned have been added to the supplementary materials.
Point 4: The conclusions section should conclude that you have achieved from the study, contributions of the study to academics and practices, and recommendations of future works.
Response 4: The conclusion section has been rewritten.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract:
The abstract provides a brief summary of the research, but it could be further improved to provide a clearer and more comprehensive overview. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly state the objective of the research, which is to understand the distribution and sources of heavy metals in an electroplating site and assess their health risks.
Highlight the importance of studying heavy metal release from real industrial sites for risk assessment and land reclamation processes.
Briefly mention the methodology used, including the soil sampling and analysis techniques.
Summarize the key findings regarding the distribution of heavy metals, their sources, and the associated health risks.
Emphasize the implications of the findings for risk management and potential land reclamation strategies.
Introduction:
The introduction provides a general background, but it lacks some essential elements. Consider the following improvements:
Clearly explain the significance of studying heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites and the potential environmental and health impacts.
Provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites, including the sources, distribution, and health risks.
Clearly state the research objectives, which include investigating the distribution and sources of heavy metals and assessing their health risks.
Literature Review:
The literature review is missing from the paper. It is crucial to provide a thorough review of existing studies on heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites. This should include discussions on sources, distribution patterns, health risks, and remediation strategies. By incorporating relevant literature, the study's contribution to the field can be better highlighted. Consider adding the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114870
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14162519
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159991
Methodology:
The methodology section should provide sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility and validity. Consider the following improvements:
Clearly describe the site selection process, including the rationale for choosing the electroplating site in the Yangtze River Delta.
Provide a more detailed explanation of the soil sampling procedure, including the number of samples collected, their locations, and the depth of sampling.
Explain the analytical techniques used to measure the heavy metal concentrations in the soil samples.
Elaborate on the positive matrix factorization (PMF) method used to investigate the sources of heavy metals and the health risk assessment (HRA) analysis conducted.
Discuss any limitations or potential biases in the methodology and data collection process.
Results:
The results section should present the key findings from the study in a clear and organized manner. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly present the concentrations of heavy metals in the soil samples, including the range and comparison with relevant standards.
Provide a detailed description of the distribution patterns of the heavy metals in the soil columns, including their depth profiles and any notable accumulation patterns.
Present the identified sources of heavy metals and their contributions using the PMF analysis.
Discuss any interactions between groundwater and soil that may affect the transfer of heavy metals.
Highlight any chemical speciation patterns observed for the heavy metals, particularly in relation to pH and CEC.
Discussion and Analysis:
The discussion and analysis section should interpret the results and relate them to the broader context. Consider the following improvements:
Analyze the implications of the identified heavy metal distribution patterns and sources for risk assessment and potential land reclamation strategies.
Discuss the influence of pH and CEC on the chemical speciation of heavy metals and their potential environmental availability and mobility.
Interpret the health risk assessment results, focusing on the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks associated with specific heavy metals.
Compare and contrast the findings with existing literature, identifying any consistencies or discrepancies.
Discuss the limitations of the study, such as the representativeness of the sampled site and potential uncertainties
First and foremost, the intrigue and captivation provided by your work is undeniable, reflecting the immense dedication and fervor with which it has been undertaken. Nevertheless, there exists scope for enhancing the usage of the English language to guarantee a more lucid and efficacious transmission of your intended message. The manuscript, in its present state, necessitates rigorous editing to establish grammatical precision, seamless continuity, and the rectification of typographical errors. The importance of such modifications is paramount in retaining the reader's interest, upholding the credibility of the work, and projecting an aura of professionalism.
Furthermore, instances of convoluted sentence structure detract from the clarity of the narrative. Decomposing these sentences and adopting a more straightforward language will undoubtedly contribute to a lucid and coherent narrative thread throughout your manuscript. When it comes to the choice of vocabulary, it is advisable to reconsider certain terms and phrases to make sure they align with the understanding level of the targeted audience. The use of specialized jargon or excessively complex terminologies risks alienating readers, thus limiting the reach of your work. Strive to make your work as inclusive as possible, ensuring that the breadth of your audience isn't compromised by the depth of your research.
In addition, some portions of the manuscript could use better consolidation of ideas for improved cohesion. Adhering to a more linear narrative flow would amplify the accuracy and comprehensibility of your content, making it easier to follow for readers. While these linguistic concerns need to be addressed, it cannot be overemphasized that the core of your work is genuinely enthralling. Upon rectification of these issues, your manuscript will manifest its potential as a stronger, more engaging piece of scholarly work.
To this end, I would urge you to seek the assistance of a professional English language editor or proofreader who can help elevate the language, readability, and overall quality of your manuscript to the desired level. This investment will undeniably bear fruit in presenting your compelling research in the most effective and eloquent manner.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your comments. The comments from the anonymous reviewers are helpful for us to improve the quality of this paper. We have revised the paper accordingly. All the revised parts have been marked in red. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us so that we can follow up.
Best regards.
Lou Ziyang on behalf of all authors
Point 1: Abstract:
The abstract provides a brief summary of the research, but it could be further improved to provide a clearer and more comprehensive overview. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly state the objective of the research, which is to understand the distribution and sources of heavy metals in an electroplating site and assess their health risks.
Highlight the importance of studying heavy metal release from real industrial sites for risk assessment and land reclamation processes.
Briefly mention the methodology used, including the soil sampling and analysis techniques.
Summarize the key findings regarding the distribution of heavy metals, their sources, and the associated health risks.
Emphasize the implications of the findings for risk management and potential land reclamation strategies.
Response 1: The abstract section has been rewritten, emphasizing the importance of real industrial sites for research, briefly introducing the methods used, and their impact on risk management.
Point 2: Introduction:
The introduction provides a general background, but it lacks some essential elements. Consider the following improvements:
Clearly explain the significance of studying heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites and the potential environmental and health impacts.
Provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites, including the sources, distribution, and health risks.
Clearly state the research objectives, which include investigating the distribution and sources of heavy metals and assessing their health risks.
Response 2: The Introduction section has rewritten and added the pollution situation of industrial sites and the history of the electroplating industry in the Yangtze River Delta region.
Point 3: Literature Review:
The literature review is missing from the paper. It is crucial to provide a thorough review of existing studies on heavy metal pollution in electroplating sites. This should include discussions on sources, distribution patterns, health risks, and remediation strategies. By incorporating relevant literature, the study's contribution to the field can be better highlighted. Consider adding the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114870
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14162519
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159991
Response 3: A literature review has been added to the Introduction section, and the above paper has been cited.
Point 4: Methodology:
The methodology section should provide sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility and validity. Consider the following improvements:
Clearly describe the site selection process, including the rationale for choosing the electroplating site in the Yangtze River Delta.
Provide a more detailed explanation of the soil sampling procedure, including the number of samples collected, their locations, and the depth of sampling.
Explain the analytical techniques used to measure the heavy metal concentrations in the soil samples.
Elaborate on the positive matrix factorization (PMF) method used to investigate the sources of heavy metals and the health risk assessment (HRA) analysis conducted.
Discuss any limitations or potential biases in the methodology and data collection process.
Response 4: The methods and materials section has been changed to provide a more detailed description of the sampling process and analysis method.
Point 5:Results:
The results section should present the key findings from the study in a clear and organized manner. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly present the concentrations of heavy metals in the soil samples, including the range and comparison with relevant standards.
Provide a detailed description of the distribution patterns of the heavy metals in the soil columns, including their depth profiles and any notable accumulation patterns.
Present the identified sources of heavy metals and their contributions using the PMF analysis.
Discuss any interactions between groundwater and soil that may affect the transfer of heavy metals.
Highlight any chemical speciation patterns observed for the heavy metals, particularly in relation to pH and CEC.
Response 1: The concentration of heavy metals, the distribution pattern of heavy metals in the soil column, the source of heavy metals and the chemical forms of heavy metals have been added to the conclusion.
Point 6:Discussion and Analysis:
The discussion and analysis section should interpret the results and relate them to the broader context. Consider the following improvements:
Analyze the implications of the identified heavy metal distribution patterns and sources for risk assessment and potential land reclamation strategies.
Discuss the influence of pH and CEC on the chemical speciation of heavy metals and their potential environmental availability and mobility.
Interpret the health risk assessment results, focusing on the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks associated with specific heavy metals.
Compare and contrast the findings with existing literature, identifying any consistencies or discrepancies.
Discuss the limitations of the study, such as the representativeness of the sampled site and potential uncertainties
Response 1: It has been added in the discussion section that remediation techniques such as leaching are used for site pollution, and the chemical forms of heavy metals under acidic and alkaline conditions are added, with a focus on the main non carcinogenic factors Pb and carcinogenic factors As.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments
General: The write-up of this manuscript was fairly good.
Specific: However, I noted the following which should be attended to.
· Can you replace heavy metals with ‘potentially toxic elements`? I guess you know that arsenic is not a metal.
· The paragraph from lines 62 to 71 is off the introduction. I suggest this part is recast or taken to Section 2.
· There is a need to highlight a niche in your introduction. Think about creative ways of coming up with one. Could the sample or the area of study?
· Line 103: Please provide a brief description of U.S. EPA method 3050 unlike just stating it.
· Line 105: Even if Tessier method of solid phase partitioning is common, it is good to write briefly of the method you used.
· Line 174: Kindly provide the standard control values that you referred to.
· Line 177: Can the author explain why Shanghai was chosen for soil background check, what was the concentration of the potentially toxic elements from the Shanghai soil?
· Line 187: There is a need to elaborate more on why Cr migrated wider than Pb. The reasons given are not sufficient.
· Line 193: The explanation for the mobility of As needs to be beefed up.
· Line 233 to 243: The explanation of speciation of Pb in the soil can be strengthened by reading the paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104197
· Fig. 4: It is better to have specific elements as chart titles unlike capturing them in the figure caption.
The English language is ok.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your comments. The comments from the anonymous reviewers are helpful for us to improve the quality of this paper. We have revised the paper accordingly. All the revised parts have been marked in red. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us so that we can follow up.
Best regards.
Lou Ziyang on behalf of all authors
Point 1: Can you replace heavy metals with ‘potentially toxic elements`? I guess you know that arsenic is not a metal.
Response 1: Explained in the introduction, As is a quasi-metallic element widely distributed in the environment,
Point 2: The paragraph from lines 62 to 71 is off the introduction. I suggest this part is recast or taken to Section
Response 2: The paragraph from lines 62 to 71 is off the introduction has been rewritten and added to the second section.
Point 3: There is a need to highlight a niche in your introduction. Think about creative ways of coming up with one. Could the sample or the area of study?
Response 3: Pollution in the electroplating industry has been a long-standing historical legacy issue in the Yangtze River Delta region. This article provides an effective method for evaluating electroplating sites and analyzing the sources of heavy metals.
Point 4: Line 103: Please provide a brief description of U.S. EPA method 3050 unlike just stating it.
Response 4: Detailed methods have been added in the manuscript.
Point 5: Line 105: Even if Tessier method of solid phase partitioning is common, it is good to write briefly of the method you used.
Response 5: Detailed methods have been added in the manuscript.
Point 6: Line 174: Kindly provide the standard control values that you referred to.
Response 6: Detailed standards have been added to the supplementary materials.
Point 7: Line 177: Can the author explain why Shanghai was chosen for soil background check, what was the concentration of the potentially toxic elements from the Shanghai soil?
Response 7: Because pollution in the electroplating industry has been a long-standing historical legacy issue in the Yangtze River Delta region. So the actual electroplating site in Shanghai was selected as the research object. The background values of heavy metals in soil in Jiading District of Shanghai are as follows: As 6.45~10.9 mg/kg, Cd 0.08~0.21 mg/kg, Cr 31.9~82.4 mg/kg, Cu 18.3~33.2 mg/kg, Pb17.5~27.7mg/kg, Ni 25.3~39.4 mg/kg, Zn 60.0~86.8 mg/kg.
Point 8: Line 187: There is a need to elaborate more on why Cr migrated wider than Pb. The reasons given are not sufficient.
Response 8: The modifications have been completed in the manuscript. This is because the acidity and organic matter could promote the leaching of Cr. In addition, Pb was the element hardest to mobilize in the environment.
Point 9: Line 193: The explanation for the mobility of As needs to be beefed up.
Response 9: The modifications have been completed in the manuscript. The soil pH levels can affect the binding form and solubility of As. Various types of organic matter and metallic elements also have strong As ad-sorption ability, which deter-mines the migration ability of As. The adsorption-desorption and/or precipita-tion-dissolution processes on the soil surface are the main mechanisms controlling the migration of As in the soil. At a depth of 2 m, the range and intensity of As pollu-tion were greater than those in the surface soil, which possibly due to the weak adsorp-tion capacity of the surface soil for As, which diffuses downwards during rainfall and groundwater fluctuations.
Point 10: Line 233 to 243: The explanation of speciation of Pb in the soil can be strengthened by reading the paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104197
Response 10: In slightly alkaline soil environments, Pb combined with alkaline ions (such as OH-) in the soil to form fixed states such as Pb(OH)2 or Pb(OH)3-, which made it more prone to exist in organic-bound, iron-manganese oxide-bound, and residual states. Pb was relatively safe because low mobility under the conditions of neutral or weak alkalinity. Under slightly acidic soil environments, Pb mainly existed in exchangeable and carbonate-bound states because the increased H+ ions in the soil easily adsorbed exchangeable Pb ions on soil particles. In slightly acidic soil environments, Pb of water, exchangeable, and carbonates fractions can easily dissolve from the soil and pollute the environment. High amounts of Pb associated with exchangeable and carbonates fractions in soil possibly attributed to anglesite (PbSO4) and cerussite (PbCO3) which are slightly soluble in water and more soluble in acetate solution as the result of the formation of lead-acetate complexes.
Point 11: Fig. 4: It is better to have specific elements as chart titles unlike capturing them in the figure caption.
Response 11: The figure has been modified.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend publishing the manuscript in its current format. Adding more references will be beneficial.
