Radiological Risk Assessment for Karstic Springs Used as Drinking Water in Rural Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

         The manuscript requires minor corrections to reach the journal standard. The comments and suggestions are highlighted. Go through it and incorporate all the suggestion. 

 

Thanking You,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion; we revised the text and tried to be more clearer with our statements.  Doing so, we found a number of small errors that were all corrected in this revised manuscript.  References were updated and double checked for accuracy.  We now hope the text reads better is more easy to follow.

Please see in attached pdf the revised form and response to all your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Alexabdra et al. collected 29 samples of karst spring water quarterly in Romania to measure radon and radium concentrations as well as physico-chemical parameters. They evaluated effective doses due to ingestion of the water samples.

 

First of all, scientific community interests in this topic, but the manuscript is not suitable for publication in Atmosphere. One reason is that the topic does not fit to neither the scope of the special issue nor the scope of the journal. It is sure that radon in water possibly enhances indoor radon, but this relationship is not mentioned in the manuscript. The other reason is that the reviewer cannot evaluate results and discussion of the radium concentration in the water samples. This is because presented data are different between tables and main text. In methodology and table 3, radium concentrations are order of 1 Bq/L and detection limit of 0.05 Bq/L. In abstract, fig. 4 and table 4, radium concentrations are order of 1 mBq/L. If the detection limit is true, all of the water samples have the radium concentrations below the detection limit.

 

Specific comment

• line 11 of abstract

Is the number of water samples 228? Only 124 samples are presented in table 2.

 

• Figure 1

Resolution is very low.

 

• Line 85

GWR11 -> GWR1

 

• Radium concentration

How to measure radium concentration? HPGe detector?

 

• Physico-chemical parameters, flow rate, and temperature

What types of sensors did you use for the measurements?

 

• Line 126

Subscripts at symbols should be deleted.

 

• Line 129

unit in water intake -> unit activity intake?

 

• Line 147

Reference 29 is the UNSCEAR report, not the USEPA document.

 

• Tables

The number of digits should be unified. “4” is “4.0”, right?

 

• Table 2

October to August may be changed to Autumn to Summer.

 

• Lines 170-171

The sentence does not agree with table 3.

 

• Table 3

At GWR1: Bdl -> bdl

At footnote: 0.5 Bq/L -> 0.05 Bq/L

 

• Figure 2

Resolution is low.

Put “flow rate (FR)” in the caption.

 

• Captions of figure 3 and 4

seson -> season

 

• Line 238

Reference 29 is the UNSCEAR report

 

• Reference list

Follow the journal style.

Reference 28: the latest WHO guideline is the 4th edition.

References 29 and 35 is the same document.

Is the description of ref, 32 OK?

USEPA document is not seen in the list.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion; we revised the text and tried to be more clearer with our statements.  Doing so, we found a number of small errors that were all corrected in this revised manuscript.  References were updated and double checked for accuracy.  We now hope the text reads better is more easy to follow.

Please see in attached pdf the revised form and response to all your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest to do an overall check of the English spelling and style. In some sentences it is hard to understand what is ment by the authors. A review of a native speaker would be helpful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion; we revised the text and tried to be more clearer with our statements.  Doing so, we found a number of small errors that were all corrected in this revised manuscript. References were updated and double checked for accuracy. We now hope the text reads better is more easy to follow.

Next, under Results and Discussion we tried to make sense of the relationship between radon in water and indoor radon.

Therefore, we completed the text, both in the Conclusion and especially in the part of the Results and Discussions and tried to be more clearer with our statements.

“Radiological health risk for population exposure to radon and radium could be considered mainly internal, through the inhalation and ingestion, which leads to dangerous health issues linked with the respiratory and di-gestive systems. Inhalation occurs by degasification of radon when water is collected and used indoors, while ingestion occurs through the consumption of water containing radon and radium.

The article aims to undertake a risk assessment for exposure to radon in drinking water and thus to establish a link between radon in air and water in terms of health impact.

Most cases of cancer attributed to radon in the household water supply is due to inhalation of the radioactive by-products that are produced from radon that has been released from the water into the air, rather than from drinking the water. Furthermore, the increased level of indoor radon that is caused by using water in the home is generally small compared with the level of indoor radon that originated in the soil beneath the home.

Nevertheless, radon is the most important radioactive carcinogen, which can affect one of our most important organs, the lungs and breathing radon increases the lifetime risk of lung cancer on long-term. With respect to the radon drinking water containing radon also presents a risk of developing internal organ cancers, primarily stomach cancer.“

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to the questions by the reviewer#2 and revised the manuscript properly.

The reviewer gives some minor comments to the revised manuscript.

 

• Equation in the section 2.2

“×10³” should be added in the equation to convert the unit Sv to mSv.

In addition, the subscript Rn at the symbol F should be deleted, because F is for not only radon but also radium.

F should be the committed effective dose per unit activity intake.

 

• Tables 1-4

The number of digits should be unified. For example, “4” is “4.0”, right?

 

• Table 3

At GWR1: Bdl -> bdl

 

• Table 4

Unit of radium concentration is Bq/L, not mBq/L

At the lines GWR17, 19, 21, and 23, the columns should be shaded.

 

Author Response

R: Thank you for your suggestion; we revised the text and tried to be more clearer with our statements.  Doing so, we found a number of small errors that were all corrected in this revised manuscript. 

 

The authors responded to the questions by the reviewer#2 and revised the manuscript properly.

The reviewer gives some minor comments to the revised manuscript.

 

 

• Equation in the section 2.2. “×10³” should be added in the equation to convert the unit Sv to mSv.

 

R: Thank you for noting this error. The request was fulfilled.

 

 

In addition, the subscript Rn at the symbol F should be deleted, because F is for not only radon but also radium.

F should be the committed effective dose per unit activity intake.

 R: Thank you for noting this error. The request was fulfilled.

 

• Tables 1-4. The number of digits should be unified. For example, “4” is “4.0”, right?

 R: Thank you for noting this error. The request was fulfilled.

 

• Table 3. At GWR1: Bdl -> bdl

 R: Thank you for noting this error. The request was fulfilled.

 

• Table 4. Unit of radium concentration is Bq/L, not mBq/L. At the lines GWR17, 19, 21, and 23, the columns should be shaded.

 

R: Thank you for noting this error. The request was fulfilled.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx