Evaluation of Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn Concentrations in Water, Soil, and Fruit Samples in Sargodha District, Pakistan
, Asma Ashfaq 1, Abdulwahed Fahad Alrefaei 3, Mikhlid H. Almutairi 3, Naunain Mehmood 4,5, Aima Iram Batool 4, Hafsa Memona 6, Ijaz Rasool Noorka 7, Shahzad Akhtar 1 and Ilker Ugulu 8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract:
The abstract presents the key findings and methodologies of the study effectively. However, for improved clarity and readability, some adjustments can be made:
This study aimed to assess the concentrations of copper (Cu)………………
of grapefruit and kinnow fruit.
The wet acid digestion method was employed for metal determination
Elevated levels of Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn were observed in water,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Introduction:
The citrus group encompasses seven distinct types, namely
Provide standard errors in the table
citrus" should be capitalized as "Citrus."
health" should be "healthy.
avaialble" should be "availabl
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- Changing the title to (Evaluation of Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn concentrations in water, soil, and fruit samples in Sargodha district, Pakistan).
2- A map is needed desperately with geographical coordinates, legend, and bar scale.
3- Rewrite the abstract and conclusions to be clearer.
4 -Develop the introduction by adding the novelty of this research and rewrite the aims to be clearer.
5 -Lines 134 – 136: (Soil samples were collected from all three to analyze the soil properties in citrus orchards. The sampling involved digging up to a depth of 60 cm using an augur, and each soil sample was a composite mixture of four parts taken from depths of 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-45 cm, and 45-60 cm.) explain clearly is that only one mixed soil sample in each location or study site, because one soil sample is not representative, you should collect at least 3 augurs in each site, or you give more information from other researches about the soil, water, and fruits
6- Proofreading is needed.
7- Give a clear definition of the fruit sites SW, CW, and TW.
8- In Table 2 the mean values of Fe and Mn are exactly the same (0.277 mg/l) Check and explain.
9- In Tables 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11, the SW site always is high, the CW site is medium and the TW is lower than the others explain and discuss with evidence.
10- In discussion line- 384, it is better to discuss each heavy metal with all the variables and then discuss the other, to explain the relationship between the different variables clearly.
11- The conclusion is so short. The conclusion reflects all the research results, you should rewrite it.
12- You may give another paragraph for recommendation as you mentioned (However, it is important to emphasize the need for controlled monitoring of these metals, especially considering the long-term application of sewage water for irrigation. Prolonged use of sewage water may alter soil properties and potentially lead to health hazards. Therefore, continuous monitoring and appropriate measures should be implemented to ensure the safety and quality of the fruits).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Proofreading is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments on “Are diverse wastewater irrigations sustainable in terms of 2 heavy metals? Accumulation in kinnow and grapefruit samples 3 and health risks from consumption” by
Zafar Iqbal Khan et al
The topic is good, but I have a lot of problems with this manuscript.
The writing is not good. A lot of descriptions are un-scientific, incomplete sentences, not enough information on the methodology, the data collection is problematic, the data analysis is questionable, and therefore the results are not convincing.
I am not going into the details here, but some pertinent ones are:
1. The abstract is not good. It does not give details on where the study was done, when it was done, what was the methodology used and what is the take-home message. Merely talking about the range of values does not mean anything.
2. The introduction is taken from a dissertation or a report. It does not appear as a well-thought-out description of the background and justification and importance of the study.
3. The way the species names are written is not correct. When anyone writes a species name, they need to write it in full for the first time. Abbreviations are not acceptable. Species name while writing needs to be in italics (especially the Latin names).
4. There are several abbreviations used in the introduction and methodology but not spelled out fully.
5. The methodology of sample collection is incomplete and insufficient. Why there are only single samples collected from each site (they say randomly selected three places) How did you prepare your sampling gears to avoid any potential contamination? How did you prepare your sample collection bottles? How did you store them? How did you preserve them? What were the quantities sampled (water and soil)? How many replicate samples collected? When was the sampling carried out? How long it took to sample? And how long it took to analyze the samples after collection? What was the preservative added?
6. Since the sampling was done without replicates (except the fruits) how did you run ANOVA?
7. Since the selection of the statistical analysis is not correct, the results as presented are not correct as well.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript requires significant improvement in English
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsP35 - Rutaceae family - it is written in italics.
P68 - The effects of toxic metals on the human body are very extensive.
P224- The formula for pollution load index (PLI) is not presented.
P228 - ....significant difference (P<0.001).....is noted ....... significant difference (p<0.001)...
Author Response
Suggestion-correction list was attached. regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did most of the corrections, the research is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Regards.
