Correction: Sovrlić et al. The Importance of Measuring Arsenic in Honey, Water, and PM₁₀ for Food Safety as an Environmental Study: Experience from the Mining and Metallurgical Districts of Bor, Serbia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12446

The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

1. In Section 2. Experimental Part and Methodology

(a)

Replace the sentence in “Section 2.1. Experimental Part”, paragraph 1:

The arsenic content was analyzed using ICP-MS by Agilent 7900 and iCAP 6000 (Thermo Scientific, Cambridge, UK).

with

The arsenic content was analyzed using ICP-MS with the Agilent 7900.

(b)

Delete the sentence in “Section 2.1. Experimental Part”, paragraph 2:

The deleted parts read as follows:

At optimal instrument parameters, a method of quantitative determination of As was formed by selecting the optimal (working) wavelength. The working wavelength for arsenic is 189.042 nm.

(c)

Delete paragraph 3 in “Section 2.1. Experimental Part”:

The deleted parts read as follows:

The arsenic in water samples was analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) using an Agilent 7900 instrument.

(d)

Delete the sentence in “Section 2.1. Experimental Part”, paragraph 5:

The deleted parts read as follows:

In addition to the reference samplers, PM₁₀ measurements in the indoor space were also performed with a Turnkey Osiris-type portable analyzer. Mean hourly values for PM₁₀ mass concentrations were obtained using this analyzer. Based on the mean hourly values of PM₁₀ concentrations, the mean daily values of concentrations were calculated, and the mass concentration of respirable particles obtained by Osiris was compared with the values obtained by gravimetric analysis.

The determination of mass concentrations of respirable particles at AMS Park is carried out continuously with a GRIMM Model EDM 180 Aerosol Technik Ainring GmbH & Co. KG, Ainring, Germany, aerosol spectrometer. The device works by detecting scattered light from particles present in the ambient air [34,35].

(e)

Delete the sentence in “Section 2.1. Experimental Part”, paragraph 6:

The deleted parts read as follows:

The mass concentration of respirable particles in the air was determined according to the SOP MDL-055 (2003) standard procedure [36], which measures the mass of sampled particles on PM₁₀ filters.

2. In Section 3. Results

(a)

Replace the sentence in “Section 3.1. As in Honey and Water”, paragraph 2:

The results of As contents in honey and the surrounding waters are given in Table 1.

with

The results of As content in honey are given in Table 1.

(b)

Table 1 should be transferred to “Section 3.1. As in Honey and Water”, after paragraph 2, and the “As in the Water” column needs to be deleted. The corrected Table 1 appears below.

Table 1. The concentration of As in bee honey. pH and electrical conductivity of honey.

Location		Distance from the Source of Pollution (km)	As in Honey mg/kg	pH of Honey	Elec. Conductivity of Honey µS/cm
Symbol	Name
1A	Slatina	5.44	0.0110	3.52	163.7
2M	Novi Gradski	2.28	0.0540	3.89	467.0
3A	Tanda	15.9	0.0037	3.28	378.0
4M	Gornjane	18.71	0.0157	3.82	658.0
5M	Savača	7.25	0.0662	3.76	892.0
6A	D.B.Reka	7.67	0.0132	3.38	246.0
7A	Trnavac	19.53	0.0033	3.57	145.3
8M	TilvaNjagra	8.95	0.1219	3.98	1017.0
9M	Borsko Jezero	8.83	0.0622	4.02	954.0
10M	Brestovačka Banja	5.79	0.0702	3.76	676.0
11A	Brestovac	4.05	0.1137	3.68	358.0
12A	Oštrelj	3.85	0.0148	3.55	129.0
13A	Krivelj	6.21	0.0359	3.62	191.5
14M	Džanovo Polje	10.08	0.1919	3.93	599.0
15A	Džanovo Polje	10.08	0.0672	3.45	166.9
16M	Gornjane	19.07	0.0151	3.98	492.0
17M	Crni Vrh	12.62	0.1505	4.11	776.0
18M	Mali Krivelj	13.28	0.0316	4.07	684.0
19A	Oštrelj	4.24	0.0034	3.63	143.0
20A	Slatina	6.67	0.0265	3.52	141.6
21M	Slatina	6.28	0.0491	3.79	428.0
22M	Slatina	6.13	0.1763	4.09	612.0
23M	Slatina	5.29	0.1167	3.99	584.0

Table 1. The concentration of As in bee honey. pH and electrical conductivity of honey.

Location		Distance from the Source of Pollution (km)	As in Honey mg/kg	pH of Honey	Elec. Conductivity of Honey µS/cm
Symbol	Name
1A	Slatina	5.44	0.0110	3.52	163.7
2M	Novi Gradski	2.28	0.0540	3.89	467.0
3A	Tanda	15.9	0.0037	3.28	378.0
4M	Gornjane	18.71	0.0157	3.82	658.0
5M	Savača	7.25	0.0662	3.76	892.0
6A	D.B.Reka	7.67	0.0132	3.38	246.0
7A	Trnavac	19.53	0.0033	3.57	145.3
8M	TilvaNjagra	8.95	0.1219	3.98	1017.0
9M	Borsko Jezero	8.83	0.0622	4.02	954.0
10M	Brestovačka Banja	5.79	0.0702	3.76	676.0
11A	Brestovac	4.05	0.1137	3.68	358.0
12A	Oštrelj	3.85	0.0148	3.55	129.0
13A	Krivelj	6.21	0.0359	3.62	191.5
14M	Džanovo Polje	10.08	0.1919	3.93	599.0
15A	Džanovo Polje	10.08	0.0672	3.45	166.9
16M	Gornjane	19.07	0.0151	3.98	492.0
17M	Crni Vrh	12.62	0.1505	4.11	776.0
18M	Mali Krivelj	13.28	0.0316	4.07	684.0
19A	Oštrelj	4.24	0.0034	3.63	143.0
20A	Slatina	6.67	0.0265	3.52	141.6
21M	Slatina	6.28	0.0491	3.79	428.0
22M	Slatina	6.13	0.1763	4.09	612.0
23M	Slatina	5.29	0.1167	3.99	584.0

Add the next sentences after Table 1:

Adamović et al. (2021) [35] published detailed results on the elevated presence of As, SO4²⁻, Fe, Cu, and Mn in river waters located in the Bor mining area in Eastern Serbia, in the same zone where As was analyzed in honey and PM₁₀ particles. The total concentrations of As in unpolluted river water, according to Adamović et al. (2021) [35], were up to 5 µg/L. The authors showed that As concentrations in polluted river waters collected from the Krivelj and Bela rivers were elevated compared with As concentrations in river water samples collected in unpolluted areas. For example, the total As concentrations in samples along the Bela Reka, according to Adamović et al. (2021) [35], were 395, 573, 715, 373, and 528 µg/L. In the vicinity of this river, there were beehives marked with sample 6A, where the concentration of As in honey was 0.0132 mg/kg, which can be seen in Table 1. The authors also published total As concentrations along the Kriveljska River with the values of 1.5, 15, 98.7, and 57.3 µg/L. Near this river, there were beehives from which honey was sampled that had the sample mark 13A. In this case, the concentration of arsenic in the honey was 0.0359 mg/kg, Table 1. In general, multi-year measurements of arsenic concentration in rivers indicate the existence of an increased concentration of arsenic in the water in the mine area.

(c)

Replace the sentence in “Section 3.1. As in Honey and Water”, paragraph 4:

The results show a good correlation (Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.608) between the content of As in honey and the pH value of honey and a very weak correlation between the content of As in honey and the content of As in water (0.030).

with

The results show a good correlation (Pearson’s correlation coefficient 0.608) between the content of As in honey and the pH value of honey.

(d)

Delete the sentences in “Section 3.1. As in Honey and Water”, paragraph 4:

The deleted parts read as follows:

Pearson’s correlation between As in water and the distance from the source of pollution has a more negative value (−0.535). This value shows that water is better for biomonitoring than honey.

(e)

Replace the sentence in “Section 3.2. As and Accompanying Metals in PM₁₀ Particles”, paragraph 5:

For Cd, the median value was 1.18 ng/m³ (0.5 ng/m³ allowed mean value at the annual level), and for As, the median value was 34.1 ng/m³ (6 ng/m³ allowed mean value at the annual level).

with

For Cd, the median value was 1.18 ng/m³ (5 ng/m³ allowed mean value at the annual level), and for As, the median value was 34.1 ng/m³ (6 ng/m³ allowed mean value at the annual level).

(f)

Replace the sentence in “Section 3.2. As and Accompanying Metals in PM₁₀ Particles”, paragraph 5 and add one more sentence:

These data indicate elevated concentrations of As and Cd in PM₁₀ at the measuring site, which was also shown by the Pearson correlation coefficient; this probably indicates the same source of pollution.

with

These data indicate elevated concentrations of As in PM₁₀ at the measuring site, which was also shown by the Pearson’s correlation coefficient; this probably indicates the same source of pollution. Šerbula et al. (2021) and Tasić et al. (2017) indicated in their studies that almost all the obtained results show increased concentrations of As in PM₁₀ [41,42].

(g)

On page 8, the authors need to replace Figure 3:

Figure 3. Boxplot (a) the content of Pb and PM₁₀ particles (μg/m³) and boxplot (b) for the content of As, Cd, and Ni (ng/m³) at the measuring site Gradski Park during 2016.

With

Figure 3. Boxplot (a) the content of PM₁₀ particles (μg/m³) and boxplot (b) the content of As, Cd, Pb and Ni (ng/m³) at the measuring site Gradski Park during 2016.

Figure 3. Boxplot (a) the content of PM₁₀ particles (μg/m³) and boxplot (b) the content of As, Cd, Pb and Ni (ng/m³) at the measuring site Gradski Park during 2016.

3. In Section 4. Discussion

After the second paragraph, add the following sentences:

For this reason, there is a multi-decade monitoring of environmental pollution with heavy metals. The SEPA Agency (Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Republic of Serbia) [56] monitors soil, water, and air pollution on a daily, monthly, and annual basis, where the data has been visible online since 2006. Antonijević et al. (2012) found that the soil is very polluted with copper, iron, and arsenic in this area [57].

4. In Author Contributions

Replace the sentence:

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.S. and V.K.; methodology, Z.S. and V.K.;

with

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.S., V.J. and V.K.; methodology, Z.S., S.T., V.J. and V.K.;

5. In Funding

Replace the sentence:

Funding: Financial support for this study was provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (contract No. 451-03-68/2022-14/200052).

with

Funding: Financial support for this study was provided by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (contract No. 451-03-47/2023-01/200052).

6. In References

References [34–36] in the original article are deleted.

References [35,41,42,56,57] in the correction are newly added. With this correction, the order of some of the references has been adjusted accordingly.

[35] Adamovic, D.; Ishiyama, D.; Djordievski, S.; Ogawa, Y.; Stevanovic, Z.; Kawaraya, H.; Sato, H.; Obradovic, L.J.; Marinkovic, V.; Petrovic, J.; et al. Estimation and comparison of the environmental impacts of acid mine drainage-bearing river water in the Bor and Majdanpek porphyry copper mining areas in Eastern Serbia. Resour. Geol. 2021, 71, 123–143.

[41] Šerbula, S.; Milosavljević, J.; Kalinović, J.; Kalinović, T.; Radojević, A.; Apostolovski-Trujić, T.; Tasić, V. Arsenic and SO2 hotspot in South-Eastern Europe: An overview of the air quality after the implementation of the flash smelting technology for copper production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 145981.

[42] Tasić, V.; Kovačević, R.; Maluckov, B.; Apostolovski-Trujić, T.; Matić, B.; Cocić, M.; Šteharnik, M. The content of As and heavy metals in TSP and PM₁₀ near copper smelter in Bor, Serbia, Water. Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 230.

[56] SEPA. State of Environment in the Republic of Serbia during 2016. Available online: http://www.sepa.gov.rs/# (accessed on 20 March 2023).

[57] Antonijević, M.M.; Dimitrijević, M.D.; Milić, S.M.; Nujkić, M.M. Metal concentrations in the soils and native plants surrounding the old flotation tailings pond of the Copper Mining and Smelting Complex Bor (Serbia). J. Environ. Monitor. 2012, 14, 866–877.

The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to readers by these changes. The manuscript will be updated, and the original will remain online on the article’s webpage.