Types and Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Soil-Groundwater of a Closed Coking Plant in Shanxi Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In an article submitted for review, "Types and Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs) in Soil-Groundwater of a Closed Coking Plant in Shanxi Province, China" shows a very important problem of soil contamination with PAH compounds. The authors described the research methodology in detail and the results themselves are very well developed. Unfortunately, the authors did not avoid mistakes. Errors and comments are presented below:

1. The introduction lacks information on the sources of PAHs through which they enter the soil. Ashes and soot from solid fuel combustion sources are not mentioned. I recommend using the following literature: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151700, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193079, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206801, https://doi .org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.030

2. Figures 3 and 5 should be corrected because they are illegible

3. The punctuation in the article should be corrected, too many spaces, such as in line 195.

4. The nomenclature of PAH compounds should be corrected, there are unnecessary spaces in the names of compounds, eg lines 196-197.

5. Maybe it would be possible to calculate the MEQ, TEQ = CEQ, TCDD-TEQ and ΣPAHcarc/ΣPAH?

Author Response

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the study, the issue of hydrocarbon pollution in groundwater and soils was addressed. It is considered an important study for the studied region. I think the study will contribute to the reader of the journal. Also, I evaluate it as original research. The manuscript can be published. Finally, as constructive criticism, in recent studies, TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) analysis in water and soil and Index of Geoaccumulation (Igeo) have been widely used to determine hydrocarbon pollution in water and soil and to identify the source of hydrocarbons. The author(s) did not address these issues in the manuscript. Therefore, the author(s) should review the following publication etc., on this topic and cite them in the manuscript and add them to the reference list of the manuscript for the benefit of the readers. Ozdemir, A. and Palabiyik, Y., 2022. Geochemical assessment methods of outcropped metasedimentary/metamorphic and deeply buried sedimentary oil and gas source rocks by hydrocarbon-rich waters and soils. International Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications, 4(2), 189-205

Author Response

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1. Please rewrite the abstract as follows: 1-2 sentences on the context and the need for the study; several sentences on the model; 2-3 sentences on how the model can be applied and its capabilities; 1-2 sentences on key conclusions and recommendations.

2. The current Introduction is too simple, it should include background, current progress, research gaps and the objective of this study, etc (Please emphasize the novelty and impactful contribution of this work as currently this appears to be marginal. The scientific contributions of this study could be further improved).

3. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.

4. Full names should be shown for all abbreviations in their first occurrence in texts. 

5. Please cite the corresponding references for the models/equations/formulas that were not originally developed by yourself.

6. Be sure to improve the quality of the Figures. Figures require the high resolutions.

7. The authors have to add the description that why they selected such models in detail. The merits and weakness for them have to be added in detail.

8. It is necessary to discuss about the results. Of course, it is not enough to simply provide results.

9. Please compare your results with previous studies.

10. Provide more details about health risk assessment.

11. The layout of the manuscript is poor, there is a large part of the work focused on the methodology, while the discussion of results is marginal.

12. The English is poor and there are typos and misleading terms across the manuscript. I would suggest an extensive proofreading.

 

 

The English is poor and there are typos and misleading terms across the manuscript. I would suggest an extensive proofreading.

Author Response

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction is still poor in information on the sources and origin of PAHs in the soil ... The authors have not sufficiently explained this phenomenon.

Why only the TEQ coefficient was counted?

Why did the authors not choose the other proposed toxicity and risk factors? Why has TEQ not been discussed with the literature?

I suggest comparing the toxicity of soil with e.g. soot or ash... I recommend the publications: https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224254

Author Response

Thanks so much for your suggestions and comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with the revision and responses made by the authors and think that the paper is now ready for publication.

I am satisfied with the revision and responses made by the authors and think that the paper is now ready for publication.

Author Response

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. I've learned a lot from your suggestions.