Assessment of Water Quality Index and the Probable Human Health Implications of Consuming Packaged Groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper can be considered as an interesting scientific work presenting the assessment of the water quality index and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, SW Nigeria. The subject is within the topics of the Sustainability Journal. The manuscript is clearly written following a structure that contains analysis and elaboration results documented and presented in an informative, reliable and explanatory way. My recommendation is that the manuscript should be accepted for publication in its present form, considering a comment regarding Figure 1, where the map shown appears to be distorted.
Author Response
Response 1: We are grateful sir/madam for your efforts in going through our manuscript. Your comments are very helpful. The map has been replotted
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript raises very important issues in the field of public health. Demonstrates the use of typical water quality determinations, wqi. Statistical analysis is basic - but not enough in my opinion. Taking into account the very short time of the research and the multitude of places - it is impossible to conclude about the influence of water quality on anything. We do not see trends, we cannot determine whether certain concentrations of metal ions are constant or random.
The research carried out is from my point of view, as well as socially - very important.
Unfortunately, time and poor analysis and inference affect the work as preliminary research.
If the authors present more research - I will be happy to evaluate such a work.
Good luck with your further research!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The presented manuscript raises very important issues in the field of public health. Demonstrates the use of typical water quality determinations, wqi.
Response 1: We are grateful sir/madam for your efforts in going through our manuscript. Your comments are very helpful.
Point 2: Statistical analysis is basic - but not enough in my opinion. Taking into account the very short time of the research and the multitude of places - it is impossible to conclude about the influence of water quality on anything.
Response 2: We are grateful for the comment. The statistics adopted was based on our objective to demarcate the means of the sachet water types using the Duncan Multiple Range Test.
Point 3: We do not see trends, we cannot determine whether certain concentrations of metal ions are constant or random.
Response 3: We are grateful sir/madam for the comment that will be useful in our future studies. However, this study is based on assessment and not monitoring that may show trends with time.
Point 4: The research carried out is from my point of view, as well as socially - very important.
Response 1: You are absolutely right when it is required to ascertain some factors for estimation of health risk. These factors were adopted from the past studies.
Point 5: Unfortunately, time and poor analysis and inference affect the work as preliminary research.
If the authors present more research - I will be happy to evaluate such a work.
Response 5: We are grateful the comment, which we will adopt in our future studies. Thanks for your wonderful comments. They are very helpful.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer # comments
Manuscript number: Sustainability-2161858
Manuscript title: Assessment of water quality index and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria
Dear Authors, I have read and assessed your manuscript. The present work evaluated the quality and health risks of packaged groundwater samples from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria. This was achieved by integrating physicochemical, statistical, and numerical analysis. Generally, your manuscript is of good quality and fits the scope of the journal. It would draw a wide readership from the research community. I commend your efforts. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions that can improve the work.
Specific comments
Abstract
1. Background: methods used in the research should not appear in the background. Kindly replace “water quality index (WQI)” with “water quality”. Mention WQI in the methods part of the abstract.
2. Methods: only metals were analyzed?
Keywords
3. Kindly replace: “groundwater” with “groundwater quality”, “non-cancer” with “non-carcinogenic risks”.
4. Kindly replace “packaged” and “quality” with other suitable keywords. Introduction 5. Line 43: Kindly mention some of the diseases. Please add the following supportive references: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1107465, https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2034990, https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2021.2025401, https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2021.2025401.
6. Line 63: Kindly delete temperature.
7. Lines 80-82: Kindly rephrase the sentences in these lines into specific objectives of the study. Materials and
Methods
8. Line 95: Kindly maintain consistency in citation and referencing style.
9. Do you have information about the possible water sources used by the companies?
Water Quality Index (WQI)
10. Kindly mention that researchers have used the index for evaluating the quality of surface and groundwater to show relevance and wide applicability of the method. Please cite: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19818-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5. Also, source for other relevant materials.
Health Risk Assessment
11. Kindly mention studies that have used the USEPA models for human health risk assessment of different water sources to show relevance and wide applicability of the method. Please cite: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-019-00039-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2020.1712606. Also, source for other relevant materials.
Results
12. Kindly use subsections, as in the materials and methods section for a better flow.
Discussions
13. Kindly improve the discussion of water quality parameters and human heath risk assessment. Use the following as a guide: https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2034990, https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2021.1907822. Other articles recommended previously could also be of help.
Tables
14. Tables 4 & 5: Mean, SD, and Min of?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Authors, I have read and assessed your manuscript. The present work evaluated the quality and health risks of packaged groundwater samples from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria. This was achieved by integrating physicochemical, statistical, and numerical analysis. Generally, your manuscript is of good quality and fits the scope of the journal. It would draw a wide readership from the research community. I commend your efforts. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions that can improve the work.
We are grateful sir for your efforts expended to review our manuscript. We thank you for all your wonderful comments, suggestion and materials. Your comments are very helpful.
Specific comments
Abstract
Point 1: Background: methods used in the research should not appear in the background. Kindly replace “water quality index (WQI)” with “water quality”. Mention WQI in the methods part of the abstract.
Point 1: Thanks for the comment, sir/madam. We are have responded to the comment as suggested.
Point 2: Methods: only metals were analyzed?
Point 2: Some physico-chemical parameters were observed. The statement has been reframed.
Keywords
Point 3: Kindly replace: “groundwater” with “groundwater quality”, “non-cancer” with “non-carcinogenic risks”.
Point 3: We are have replaced “groundwater” with “groundwater quality”, “non-cancer” with “non-carcinogenic risks” as suggested.
Point 4: Kindly replace “packaged” and “quality” with other suitable keywords.
Point 4: We are have replaced the identified keywords with suitable ones as suggested.
Point 5: Introduction 5. Line 43: Kindly mention some of the diseases. Please add the following supportive references: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1107465, https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2034990, https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2021.2025401, https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2021.2025401.
Point 5: We are very grateful for the suggested papers, in which the relevant 3 had been adopted and incorporated into the manuscript.
Point 6: Line 63: Kindly delete temperature.
Point 6: Temperature has been deleted as suggested.
Point 7: Lines 80-82: Kindly rephrase the sentences in these lines into specific objectives of the study.
Point 7: Thanks for the observation. The sentence has been rephrased as suggested.
Materials and Methods
Point 8: Line 95: Kindly maintain consistency in citation and referencing style.
Point 8: The referencing style has been corrected.
Point 9: Do you have information about the possible water sources used by the companies?
Point 9: Yes. They did package borehole groundwater.
Water Quality Index (WQI)
Point 10: Kindly mention that researchers have used the index for evaluating the quality of surface and groundwater to show relevance and wide applicability of the method. Please cite: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19818-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5. Also, source for other relevant materials.
Point 9: Thanks for the suggested papers. We have incorporated them into the manuscript.
Health Risk Assessment
Point 11: Kindly mention studies that have used the USEPA models for human health risk assessment of different water sources to show relevance and wide applicability of the method. Please cite: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0900-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-019-00039-3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2020.1712606. Also, source for other relevant materials.
Point 11: Thanks for the suggested papers. We have incorporated the appropriate ones into the manuscript.
Results
Point 12: Kindly use subsections, as in the materials and methods section for a better flow.
Point 12: Thanks for the suggested comment. Subsections had been introduced.
Discussions
Point 13: Kindly improve the discussion of water quality parameters and human heath risk assessment. Use the following as a guide: https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2023515, https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2034990, https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2021.1907822. Other articles recommended previously could also be of help.
Point 13: Thanks for the suggested papers. We have incorporated the appropriate ones into the manuscript.
Tables
Point 14: Tables 4 & 5: Mean, SD, and Min of?
Response 14: They are for hazard quotient and cancer risk.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper designs three indexes, i.e. hazard index (HI), hazard quotient (HQ), and cancer risk (CR) and evaluates the groundwater pollution in the Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria. The data are detailed and reliable. The research results are helpful to understand and protect the sustainability of local groundwater. It is recommended to accept. But some improvements are needed.
1. Figure 1 needs to be redrawn
2. The discussion part can be more logical, for example, divided into three indexes ( hazard index, hazard quotient, and cancer risk)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The paper designs three indexes, i.e. hazard index (HI), hazard quotient (HQ), and cancer risk (CR) and evaluates the groundwater pollution in the Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria. The data are detailed and reliable. The research results are helpful to understand and protect the sustainability of local groundwater. It is recommended to accept. But some improvements are needed.
We are grateful sir for your efforts expended to review our manuscript. We thank you for all your wonderful comments, suggestion and materials. Your comments are very helpful.
Point 1: Figure 1 needs to be redrawn
Response 1: The map has been replotted.
Point 2: The discussion part can be more logical, for example, divided into three indexes ( hazard index, hazard quotient, and cancer risk).
Response 2: Thanks for the suggestion. We have split the discussion section into subgroups as also suggested by one of the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you very much for the review invitation of manuscript.
I read your paper "Assessment of water quality index and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria" with great interest and well-written manuscript.
The groundwater in study area has faced with contamination of groundwater and authors try to assess the water quality index (WQI) and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, southwestern Nigeria. The result show that the WQI data indicated suitability for drinking purposes. The health risk data indicated high HQs > 1.0 for Ca (for adults and children at all the monitoring sites), Mn (children at all the sites, and adults at six sites), Mo (children at four sites, and adults at three sites), and Cu (children at three sites, and adults at one site).
1. Section on Methodology: Health Risk Assessment must be represented in terms of data collection in order to estimate: daily intake (EDI), hazard quotient (HQ), hazard index 167 (HI), and cancer risk (CR). The method of assessing health risks has limitations and/or uncertainty.
2. Figure 1 should be revised and improved in quality - it appears distorted?
3. Figure S1 was unable to see
4. The yellow highlight should be removed
5. Corrections to the abstract ((1) Background, (2) Methods:... need to be removed)
6. 9 sites or 8 sites or 7 sites
7. "Health Risk Assessment" should include a literature review in the introduction section as well as a discussion with other studies
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I read your paper "Assessment of water quality index and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria" with great interest and well-written manuscript.
The groundwater in study area has faced with contamination of groundwater and authors try to assess the water quality index (WQI) and the probable human health implications of consuming packaged groundwater from Abeokuta and Sagamu, southwestern Nigeria. The result show that the WQI data indicated suitability for drinking purposes. The health risk data indicated high HQs > 1.0 for Ca (for adults and children at all the monitoring sites), Mn (children at all the sites, and adults at six sites), Mo (children at four sites, and adults at three sites), and Cu (children at three sites, and adults at one site).
Response: We are grateful for your time and efforts expended to read and review our manuscript. Your comments are very helpful.
- Section on Methodology: Health Risk Assessment must be represented in terms of data collection in order to estimate: daily intake (EDI), hazard quotient (HQ), hazard index 167 (HI), and cancer risk (CR). The method of assessing health risks has limitations and/or uncertainty.
Response 1: We are grateful for the comment. The method of calculating the health risk was wholly based on the procedures recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The sources were cited.
- Figure 1 should be revised and improved in quality - it appears distorted?
Response 2: The figure has been replotted..
- Figure S1 was unable to see
Response 3: We are grateful for the observation. We have amended the Figure. However, most of the elements contributed less than 1%, and hence not showing in the figure.
- The yellow highlight should be removed
Response 4: All the yellow hughlights have been removed.
- Corrections to the abstract ((1) Background, (2) Methods:... need to be removed)
Response 5: The correction have effected as suggested.
- 9 sites or 8 sites or 7 sites
Response 6: We have seven sites.
- "Health Risk Assessment" should include a literature review in the introduction section as well as a discussion with other studies
Response 7: We are grateful for the observation. We have included this. We are grateful for all your wonderful comments, which are very helpful..
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I consider that the authors have adequately addressed the proposed recommendations in the revised manuscript. My recommendation is that the paper should be accepted for publication in its present revised form.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I consider that the authors have adequately addressed the proposed recommendations in the revised manuscript. My recommendation is that the paper should be accepted for publication in its present revised form.
Response 1: We are grateful for accepting our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After reviewing the revised version of the manuscripts and taking note of the authors' responses to my earlier comments, I conclude as follows:
1. I would like to ask you to improve the quality. Figure 1. Looking at the quality and workmanship - I suggest posting screenshots in a word/paint file. Then save the whole thing in PDF format. Or otherwise.
2. Figure S1: I suggest changing the appearance of the bars. I can't tell which metal has the lowest values.
3. In tables, placing letters as a distinction is a good and popular idea. However, I suggest posting them superscripted. this increases data transparency.
I still maintain that the work is interesting - and necessary.
Congratulations on your research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: I would like to ask you to improve the quality. Figure 1. Looking at the quality and workmanship - I suggest posting screenshots in a word/paint file. Then save the whole thing in PDF format. Or otherwise.
Response 1: We are grateful for your wonderful suggestion. The map has been replotted as suggested.
Point 2: Figure S1: I suggest changing the appearance of the bars. I can't tell which metal has the lowest values.
Response 2: Thanks sir/ma for the comment. The problem with this figure is that apart from Ca and Mn, all other metals contributed 0% to the total non-carcinogenic effects. At your comment, we have removed the junks that would not allow the legend to be visible. We have also changed the colours of the bars.
Point 3: In tables, placing letters as a distinction is a good and popular idea. However, I suggest posting them superscripted. this increases data transparency.
Response 3: All the alphabeths have been posted as superscript.
Point 4: I still maintain that the work is interesting - and necessary.
Response 4: We are grateful for your compliments. All your suggestions are very helpful.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept. Issues raised in the previous review have been satisfactorily addressed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Accept. Issues raised in the previous review have been satisfactorily addressed.
Response 1: We are grateful for accepting our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
It seems that the paper has been modified according to the suggestions. There are no more suggestions, please accept the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: It seems that the paper has been modified according to the suggestions. There are no more suggestions, please accept the paper.
Response 1: We are grateful for accepting our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Point 1: Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript for publication in Sustainability..
Response 1: We are grateful for accepting our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
