Soil Contamination in the Problem Areas of Agrarian Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The eco-environment risk of excessive heavy metals in the soil has been the research focus. So, the selection of subject of this paper has certain theoretical and realistic sense. However, there are some questions should be considered.

1.In order to assess the pollution level or risk of the heavy metals, soil environmental quality standard with regional characteristics is an essential prerequisite. The authors should give the detail information of the soil environmental quality standard, especially for the heavy metals.       

2. The third part in this paper should be "3. Results and discussion" instead of "3. Results".

3. If the data in Table 1 were cited from the reference [50], the data were not the results of this research.  

4. The calculation method of pollution index should be revised.

Author Response

We would like to thank our opponents very much for the valuable advice, comments, and recommendations that we tried to accept in full. We present our attitude to the justified comments in the chronological order.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

This MS investigated the concentration of several trace metals in the surface soil close to different kind of industrial/mining solid waste landfills in Slovak, and assessed the contamination status of these sites, it is beneficial to the understanding of the environmental status of these areas. But there are still a lots of problems as showed below, hence a major revision is recommend.

 

Detailed comments:

• Section 2.2, soil assays and data analyses, how many soils samples were collected in each site? Does these samples has a good representative for each site? How far the sampling site are from the waste ponds or landfills? What’s the liquid to soil ratio for the pH determination? For the digestion method of soil samples, the author should give a simple description, such as the acid used and the digestion procedure (such as temperature and duration); and how the QA/QC for determination was obtained?
• Line 246 and Table 1, are the background values in different sites obtained by this study or reference [50]? If by this study, how the authors get this data, by collecting samples from the reference sites?
• Line 332 and line 342-343, please give the references for the world background of Cd and Hg, and the global average of Hg (1.1 mg/kg) for soil is seems too high;
• Table 2, please supplement the detailed values of each element at each site, like that in Table 1, otherwise, it’s hard to understand the detailed contamination status of each site.
• Table 4, the author ranked the risk level of different elements, including PCB, but they didn’t mentioned it in other parts of the MS;
• Line 418 to 420, and Figure 2, the author classified the investigated sites into three groups, but more description or explanation of each group should be gave.

Author Response

We would like to thank our opponents very much for the valuable advice, comments, and recommendations that we tried to accept in full. We present our attitude to the justified comments in the chronological order.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study entitled “Soil contamination in the problem areas of agrarian Slovakia” is good. For a better understanding in-depth, it is a need for time to work on this topic. Furthermore, the achievement of potential benefits by using current technology is also dependent on the extensive research work for more exploration. Although the experiment is well organized, yet I suggest a major revision due to the following deficiencies.

Major Concerns

Abstract = Systematic abstract is missing.

• Introduce the need for study in 1-2 lines.
• Give a problem statement.
• Give reason for the selection of current strategy for the solution of the problem.
• Quantitative data is also important to support your conclusion. Would you please provide some quantitative data in terms of percentage significant increase or decrease in the abstract?
• Please provide a conclusive conclusion with is withdrawn through research in a single line. The statement “The studied areas pose a serious danger not only to the soil but also to groundwater and biota due to the prevailing low soil reaction, which increases the mobility of toxic elements” is general. Please conclude with a statement that shows a knowledge gap covered, potential beneficiaries and specific recommendations as well.
• Give future prospective in a single line.
• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

Introduction

• Please follow the title in the introduction section, i.e., Soil contamination, then areas of agrarian Slovakia, knowledge gap, hypothesis and aims.
• Also, provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things authors have done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?
• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap which your research has covered?

Material and Methods

• It is very difficult to assess the material and methods. Please give subsections in the material and methodology section so that reader may get a better and easy understanding.
• Have authors conducted any statistical analysis? If yes then give a subheading and elaborate it. In this case, if the authors have not done statistical analysis please provide any modelling details if modelling is done. For a research article, it is a very important aspect.
• Descriptive statistics is not enough to justify the results of a research article. I would like to suggest the authors provide Shankey or Chord diagrams as well if possible.

Results and Discussion

• Please revise the results and give some quantitative data.
• How many replicates were used in the analysis? Please elaborate at the end of the table.
• Provide ± SD or SE in the tables in the results section.
• Please mechanistic approach as supporting evidence for discussion of results. It would be better if authors elaborate on the driven mechanism for these heavy metals accumulation. They can also elaborate the results by providing sources of these contaminants in the studied area in the context of past researches conducted by scientists.

Conclusion

• Please give a conclusive conclusion.
• Major portions of the introduction and results are incorporated in the conclusion. Please remove that.
• If the authors are not sure, then give future recommendations for more research and investigation.
• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefits from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations and future prospective regarding this research.

Minor

The English language needs extensive editing from native English speakers.

Author Response

We would like to thank our opponents very much for the valuable advice, comments, and recommendations that we tried to accept in full. We present our attitude to the justified comments in the chronological order.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised MS could be considered for publication.