210Po in the Environment: Reassessment of Dose to Humans
Želimir Veinović
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are thankful for your comments. Point wise reply is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
To be quite honest, I find this article to be somewhat short overview paper. It does not have inappropriate self citations, although there are quite a lot self citations (first author) which can be considered justified since the work is an overview and the author has already written other articles on the same topic. I consider it a little bit on the edge of too many self citations. The paper, although quite short, is quite well conceived. The discussion is in order, but it would be good if there was some form of quantification of the impact of Po on organisms, better expressed than in the article. A map showing locations with elevated Po concentrations would also be a good addition to the article (Table 1 converted into map?).
Realistically, I have no particular complaints except that it seems to me that the article is somewhat sketchy.
I would recommend that some data, for example on amounts/concentrations of Po in food, be presented as a graph with concentrations of Po in food types. It would also be convenient to graphically compare the ways of intake of Po into the body.
I also think that a more concrete conclusion would be useful.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are thankful for your review and comments. We have tried addressing the concerns. A pointwise reply is appended for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented Perspective is partially good as Perspective
but need to consider some issues
Comments should be considered
I can't find the aim or results even the conclusion in the abstract.
What do you mean by progeny in that sentence '' The main source of 210Po and its progeny in the environment is 238U.''
''in addition to 210Po produced due to 31 decay from 210Pb via 210Bi.'' 210Pb via 210Bi have different sources except 238U??
lines 28-38 please rewrite clearly with indication to natural and artificial sources 210Po separately.
''The overriding interest in 210Po assessment emanates from the fact that over 90% 39 of the natural radiation dose received by living organisms comes from 210Po ingestion 40 and inhalation.'' where are the references to that fact??
''We intend to discuss details of likely 210Po dose from seafood ingestion'' please use passive
the aim of the work should be separately presented at the end of the introduction.
English with grammar should be considered
Where is the conclusion??
Author Response
We are thankful for your review and comments. We have tried addressing the concerns. A pointwise reply is appended for your kind consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Figure 1 should be improved. Quite small to be seen. Citation/reference is required. Perhaps, the authors can add in the caption, the plotting was obtained from Table 1. The value 270 in the legend refers to the?
2) I still believe the authors need to have a conclusion part to summarize their stand. They can take it from the recommendation and discussion sections.
Author Response
We are thankful for your kind review and suggestions. we have taken them into account a point-wise reply is appended. We hope you will now find it acceptable for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
NOW IT IN ACCEPTABLE FORM AND CAN BE ACCEPTED
Author Response
We appreciate your support and thank you for suggesting acceptance of this manuscript.
