Heavy Metal Pollution and Risk Assessment of Vegetables and Soil in Jinhua City of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focus on the heavy metal contamination and risk assessment of vegetables and soil in Jinhua City of China. Overall, it is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs some improvement before acceptance for publication. Specific comments are as follows:
1. The format of the full manuscript are relatively accurate, but some places need to be carefully checked, such as the number of decimal places of “17.4-80.6 g/kg” and “36.07 g/kg” in line 189 should be uniformed.
2. The quality of the English language should be further polished, such as Line 66 “......by adding adding reagents.....”, line 72 “its pillar industry is auto parts”.
3. It is suggested to add the acceptable range of HI or TCR to Figure 6 “Non-carcinogenic risk assessment results of various vegetables” and Figure 8 “Carcinogenic risk assessment results of various vegetables”, the pollution of different vegetables can be seen more directly.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Heavy metal pollution and risk assessment of vegetables and soil in Jinhua City of China” (ID: sustainability-2157316). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. Reviewer suggestions and the reply to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
- The format of the full manuscript are relatively accurate, but some places need to be carefully checked, such as the number of decimal places of “17.4-80.6 g/kg” and “36.07 g/kg” in line 189 should be uniformed.
Response: “17.4-80.6 g/kg” in line 189 has been revised with “1.74×104-8.06×104 mg/kg”, “36.07 g/kg” in line 189 has been revised with “3.61×104 mg/kg”. All the related contents have been marked red in the manuscript.
- The quality of the English language should be further polished, such as Line 66 “......by adding adding reagents.......”, line 72 “its pillar industry is auto parts”.
Response: Redundant “adding” has been deleted in the manuscript; “its pillar industry is auto parts” has been revised with “Its pillar industry is auto parts”.
- It is suggested to add the acceptable range of HI or TCR to Figure 6 “Non-carcinogenic risk assessment results of various vegetables” and Figure 8 “Carcinogenic risk assessment results of various vegetables”, the pollution of different vegetables can be seen more directly.
Response: Related safety lines have been added in Figures 6 (Actually, it is Figure 7) and Figures 8(Actually, it is Figure 9).
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Evaluation methods are not original or common sense and should be cited.
2. It si suggested to increase the difference of data and statistical significance analysis.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Heavy metal pollution and risk assessment of vegetables and soil in Jinhua City of China” (ID: sustainability-2157316). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. Reviewer suggestions and the reply to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
1.Evaluation methods are not original or common sense and should be cited.
Response: The evaluation methods in the manuscript have been cited.
- It is suggested to increase the difference of data and statistical significance analysis.
Response: Data differences and statistical significance analysis have been added to Figure 2 and Figure 3(Actually, it is Figure 3 and Figure 4) of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear autor,
This paper is a classic case study. However, I do not understand how the authors do a case study on contamination and choose metals that are in low concentration and are not a problem. Only Cd in some cases exceeds the recommended limits.
Soil and plant sampling is poorly explained.
The statistical analysis is very poor.
In addition, the author confuses terms such as content and concentration.
I have added comments throughout the text.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Heavy metal pollution and risk assessment of vegetables and soil in Jinhua City of China” (ID: sustainability-2157316). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. Reviewer suggestions and the reply to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
This paper is a classic case study. However, I do not understand how the authors do a case study on contamination and choose metals that are in low concentration and are not a problem. Only Cd in some cases exceeds the recommended limits.
Soil and plant sampling is poorly explained.
The statistical analysis is very poor.
In addition, the author confuses terms such as content and concentration.
I have added comments throughout the text.
Response:
- The sampling areas of this manuscript are all agricultural production land in Jinhua city, all the metals measured in this survey are heavy metals; The sampling of soil and plants has been explained, data difference and significance analysis have been added in Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the manuscript; The confused terms such as content and concentration have been revised in the text; Other comments have been corrected in the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. This paper should be re-edited by native English-speaking professionals, which is more suitable for publication. 2. The introduction should focus on the study area and the comparison of related studies in other countries. 3. The source of SARA and RCRA should be verified again, it should not be the relevant laws of European countries. 4. The analysis of heavy metals in soil is an important comparison benchmark for this study. Please describe the analysis method in detail. 5. There are a number of abbreviations for proper nouns in the health risk assessment section, please define their representative meanings first. 6. Please explain the meaning of "valid state" in Table 5? It is recommended to list (GB15201-94) or (GB 15618-2018) national standards in the table for comparison. 7. The number of the figure in the correlation analysis is wrongly marked (figure 1), and the meaning of the numbers and signs in the matrix is not clear enough. 8. The positive correlation between SOM and soil heavy metals may not be directly related to complexation, but should be related to the higher cation exchange capacity of soil organic matter. Please review and correct. 9. The slight acidity of the soil in Jinhua area is favorable for the dissociation of Cd and the uptake of plants, which may explain the trend of high BCF, and it does not happen only when it exceeds the standard.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Heavy metal pollution and risk assessment of vegetables and soil in Jinhua City of China” (ID: sustainability-2157316). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. Reviewer suggestions and the reply to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
- This paper should be re-edited by native English-speaking professionals, which is more suitable for publication.
Response: The English has been polished which be marked red in the manuscript.
- The introduction should focus on the study area and the comparison of related studies in other countries.
Response: The introduction has been added and revised in the manuscript.
- The source of SARA and RCRA should be verified again, it should not be the relevant laws of European countries.
Response: SARA and RCRA are relevant laws of the United States, which has been revised in the manuscript.
- The analysis of heavy metals in soil is an important comparison benchmark for this study. Please describe the analysis method in detail.
Response: The analysis of heavy metals in soil and plants is a very common analysis method, and we have quoted relevant references in the manuscript.
- There are a number of abbreviations for proper nouns in the health risk assessment section, please define their representative meanings first.
Response: The abbreviations have been checked and revised.
- Please explain the meaning of "valid state" in Table 5? It is recommended to list (GB15201-94) or (GB 15618-2018) national standards in the table for comparison.
Response: The "Valid state" in Table 5 (Actually, it is Table 6) has been explained, and the national standard (GB15618-2018) has been added in Table 5 for comparison.
- The number of the figure in the correlation analysis is wrongly marked (figure 1), and the meaning of the numbers and signs in the matrix is not clear enough.
Response: Relevant expressions have been revised in figure 1 and the related corresponding places.
- The positive correlation between SOM and soil heavy metals may not be directly related to complexation, but should be related to the higher cation exchange capacity of soil organic matter. Please review and correct.
Response: The relevant points in the manuscript have been revised.
- The slight acidity of the soil in Jinhua area is favorable for the dissociation of Cd and the uptake of plants, which may explain the trend of high BCF, and it does not happen only when it exceeds the standard.
Response: The suggestion has been added in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I have seen the changes made. In future work I advise you to perform a robust statistical analysis from the beginning, i.e. ANOVA or similar.
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
In the future work, we will follow your suggestions and carry out statistical analysis on the data results.
Kind regards
Reviewer 4 Report
It is recommended to review and correct spelling, paragraphs, etc.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
We have checked and reviewed the spelling and paragraphs in the manuscript. And all the related contents have been marked red in the manuscript.
Kind regards
