Determination of Soil Contamination Due to the Influence of Cemeteries for the Surrounding Land and People in Central Ecuador—Worldwide Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to dear Dr. Ren for inviting me to review this extraordinarily interesting article (Land-3125647). The authors have done an interesting study on the impact of cemeteries on soil contamination in central Ecuador, centered around the impact of cemeteries on the surrounding land and people. This research topic is rare, interesting and of real value, This is a very promising study that may appeal to a wider audience. I carefully reviewed this article and the following concerns need to be addressed before publication.

Major issues:

1.Main problem: Only 13 cemeteries were selected for soil sampling in the study, which may limit the generalizability and replicability of the results. This may affect the scientific validity of the results, please explain and justify.

2. Although the study conducted soil samples during both dry and wet seasons, no significant effect of seasonality on soil contamination was found. However, this finding may need further validation with more samples or observations over a longer period of time, which needs to be explained by the authors.

3. The study focused on the central region of Ecuador and may not be representative of other regions or different climatic conditions. Soil characteristics, climatic conditions, and cemetery management practices in different regions may have influenced the results.

4. The study did not consider the impact of different cemetery management practices on soil contamination, such as different burial methods, use of biodegradable materials or containment measures.

5. Soil biological activity and microbial community composition are critical for pollutant degradation and soil health, but this is not discussed much in the literature.

Specific detailed issues：

1.Introduction: The introduction section mentions the importance of soil and its interaction with human activities, but does not elaborate on how cemetery activities specifically affect soil health. It is recommended that the authors provide more background information to explain why cemeteries are a land use type of particular concern.

2. Materials and Methods: The authors used the Saaty Matrix and Geographic Information Tool in the sample selection process. Please provide more details on how these specific cemeteries were selected and how representative samples were ensured.

3. The authors mention collecting soil samples at different depths, but do not explain why these particular depths were chosen. Please explain how these depths were determined and their potential relationship to soil contamination in the cemeteries.

4. Results: Organic matter, NO3-, moisture, and pH for the different cemeteries are listed in the results table. It is recommended that the authors provide more information about the distribution of the data, such as standard deviation or coefficient of variation, to demonstrate the variability of the data.

5. The results section mentions the use of Kruskal-Wallace and ANOVA statistical analyses, but does not provide hypothetical conditions tested or a description of the data distribution. Please provide this information to demonstrate the applicability of the chosen statistical method.

6. Discussion: The discussion mentions that the El Niño phenomenon may have an impact on the results, but does not elaborate on how this impact has been assessed and quantified. Please provide more details or cite relevant literature to support this argument.

7. Conclusions: The conclusions section emphasizes the low susceptibility of suitable and fully suitable cemetery soils to contamination, but does not provide specific recommendations on how to achieve or maintain this soil status. The authors are invited to suggest management practices or policy recommendations based on the study's findings.

 I'm looking forward to the author's revisions, good luck!

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Determination of soil contamination due to the influence of cemeteries for the surrounding land and people in central Ecuador – Worldwide implications”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

Major issues:

1. Main problem: Only 13 cemeteries were selected for soil sampling in the study, which may limit the generalizability and replicability of the results. This may affect the scientific validity of the results, please explain and justify.
2. The observation is accepted as part of a potential change. Nonetheless, the study initiated with the consideration of categories, each of them with characteristics explained in the study by (Arcos Yánez, 2020; Crisanto-Perrazo et al., 2022). The statistical formula (1) was applied with a confidence level of 95% to calculate the sample per category, finding that the universes (the total number of cemeteries in each category) were small, so the required sample was practically the same universe, except for the "slightly adequate" category. Given this situation, it was decided to take three cemeteries per category, which made it possible to establish a statistical trend and adjust to the available resources, mainly the economic factors.

(1)

Where,

• N is the population size
• z is the z-score
• e is the margin of error
• p is the standard of deviation

Although the sample of 13 cemeteries may be limited to generalize the results to a broader population, it allows for identifying trends and patterns within each category. This study is an initial exploration (pilot study), which provides valuable information for the design of broader and more representative research in the future. Therefore, the findings and identified limitations are able to serve as a basis for future more comprehensive and representative research.

2. Although the study conducted soil samples during both dry and wet seasons, no significant effect of seasonality on soil contamination was found. However, this finding may need further validation with more samples or observations over a longer period of time, which needs to be explained by the authors.
3. The observation is more than acceptable. In the scope of the research work it is stated that the study was conducted during the dry and rainy seasons. However, in the corresponding lines the recommendation was added to continue with the study during at least two periods (dry season and rainy season) and thus more representative results would be obtained.
4. The study focused on the central region of Ecuador and may not be representative of other regions or different climatic conditions. Soil characteristics, climatic conditions, and cemetery management practices in different regions may have influenced the results.
5. Unfortunately, and with all due respect, this is not even closely true. The objective of the research work has been to determine the soil contamination caused by the location of cemeteries in a study area that includes variability in edaphic, geographic, environmental and social conditions, as well as different wet and dry climatic conditions. All these conditions influenced the effects of the study and the results indicated in the scientific article presented confirm their interaction.

According to the reviewed literature, cemetery management in the study area is similar to that in the rest of the world (Allam, 2019), so it was not considered as a variable. Typically, cemeteries receive the coffin containing the body for later burial (Azevedo et al., 2023) and leave it at the designated site for a period that can vary between 15 and 25 years, and then remove the bones to a common ossuary or perform an exhumation (Rae, 2021). None of the cemeteries contemplate leachate containment, collection and treatment systems, or waste management (Jonker & Olivier, 2012).

4. The study did not consider the impact of different cemetery management practices on soil contamination, such as different burial methods, use of biodegradable materials or containment measures.
5. Here, we may disagree. The study did not consider the management of corpses as a variable, since the studied cemeteries use traditional burial, which is a common practice worldwide, as mentioned in question 3.

The use of biodegradable practices such as humusation, biodegradable urns and others are not part of this study because they are methods practiced in a minority or are in the study phase. In addition, so far, no cemetery in the world has containment measures for the generated leachates (Jonker & Olivier, 2012).

5. Soil biological activity and microbial community composition are critical for pollutant degradation and soil health, but this is not discussed much in the literature.
6. We absolutely agree. An explanation of the influence of soil biological activity and the action of the microbial community on the degradation of contaminants was placed from line 85 to line 95. However, in relation to soil health, despite being a very interesting topic, it is not part of the scope of this research work.

 

Specific detailed issues：

1. Introduction: The introduction section mentions the importance of soil and its interaction with human activities, but does not elaborate on how cemetery activities specifically affect soil health. It is recommended that the authors provide more background information to explain why cemeteries are a land use type of particular concern.
2. The comment is more than welcome. Therefore, we completely restructured the introduction in order to comply with your request.
3. Materials and Methods: The authors used the Saaty Matrix and Geographic Information Tool in the sample selection process. Please provide more details on how these specific cemeteries were selected and how representative samples were ensured.
4. Correct, which has let to the details as requested now provided in lines 206-208 and 2011-214.
5. The authors mention collecting soil samples at different depths, but do not explain why these particular depths were chosen. Please explain how these depths were determined and their potential relationship to soil contamination in the cemeteries.
6. Agreed. This is clarified in the lines 228 to 230.
7. Results: Organic matter, NO3-, moisture, and pH for the different cemeteries are listed in the results table. It is recommended that the authors provide more information about the distribution of the data, such as standard deviation or coefficient of variation, to demonstrate the variability of the data.
8. We have to disagree here, as the Tables 4, 5 and 6 list the results of the standard deviation of the variables Organic Matter, Nitrates, Humidity and pH by season, sample collection sections and categories respectively. Additionally, Table 3 indicates the data of the variables previously mentioned for each cemetery, and according to the objective, the critical values of the variables analyzed are exhibited clearly to the interested reader.
9. The results section mentions the use of Kruskal-Wallace and ANOVA statistical analyses, but does not provide hypothetical conditions tested or a description of the data distribution. Please provide this information to demonstrate the applicability of the chosen statistical method.
10. We may disagree again for a good reason, as on lines 244 to 249 it details the conditions for applying the Kruskal-Wallace or Anova methods (normality and homoscedasticity). Tables 4, 5 and 6 mention the type of statistical test used for each analyzed variable.
11. Discussion: The discussion mentions that the El Niño phenomenon may have an impact on the results, but does not elaborate on how this impact has been assessed and quantified. Please provide more details or cite relevant literature to support this argument.
12. Correct, and therefore clarified in lines 354-369.
13. Conclusions: The conclusions section emphasizes the low susceptibility of suitable and fully suitable cemetery soils to contamination, but does not provide specific recommendations on how to achieve or maintain this soil status. The authors are invited to suggest management practices or policy recommendations based on the study's findings.
14. Agreed. The entire conclusion section has been restructured and the recommendations section has been expanded from lines 452 to 465.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments to the Author:

This paper provides a cohesive overview of the article by organizing information into sections that clearly interrelate from introducing the problem and methodology to present results, discussing implications and concluding that soil contamination varies with cemetery suitability, emphasizing the need for tailored management policies. Further research is recommended to confirm findings and ensure sustainable environmental practices and public health population. It is a very interesting topic. 

Remarks

• The charts of the paper, their labels and their values are easy to understand
• All tables are clearly labeled and referenced in the text.

Dear Authors should pay attention to the revisions, addressing each and every comment:

1.    Please highlight the most important originalities of the research in the end introduction.

2.    Improve figure 3, the titles is very long, it is recommended to simplify them and better explain them in the text.

3.    It is recommended to separate the discussion and recommendation from the conclusions.

 

 

 

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Determination of soil contamination due to the influence of cemeteries for the surrounding land and people in central Ecuador – Worldwide implications”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

1. Please highlight the most important originalities of the research in the end introduction.
2. After your comment and our re-reading of the introduction, we agree fully that this part had to be rewritten. The introduction has been entirely restructured.
3. Improve figure 3, the titles are very long, it is recommended to simplify them and better explain them in the text.
4. This is correct, therefore, the quality and content of the figures have been improved (not only #3) and the corresponding text has been simplified..
5. It is recommended to separate the discussion and recommendation from the conclusions
6. Very good advice. Section 5 was added for recommendations. The discussion, conclusions and recommendations sections are now clearly separated.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic of the work is interesting. You have shown a lot of results, but I have a few remarks and suggestions.

Modify the title, long and unreasonable,

Shorten the introductory part, be concise and specific.

Section 111 to 128 should be defined more comprehensively and clearly

Paragraph 2.1 should be shortened.

Are tables 1 and 2 your tables? if not provide references, also compare the results with other authors and their references.

In your work, pay attention to the labels as you define certain terms.

Why didn't you use more cemetery locations for sampling and then give a comparative analysis?

Indicate the latitude and longitude in the paper, that is, the exact location of the sampling.

The analysis methods were not described to you in the right way.

You need to better connect the results and the analysis.

In your research as if you have done only a part, additional analyzes are needed to make the research comprehensive.

Author Response

Response Letter to the expert reviewer

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript entitled “Determination of soil contamination due to the influence of cemeteries for the surrounding land and people in central Ecuador – Worldwide implications”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes realized and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in yellow within the edited manuscript.

 

 

1. Modify the title, long and unreasonable
2. The observation has been very welcome. The title has been shortened from: “Determination of soil contamination due to the influence of cemeteries for the surrounding land and people in central Ecuador – Worldwide implications” to “Evaluation of soil contamination in cemeteries in central Ecuador - beginning of an environmental alert”.
3. Shorten the introductory part, be concise and specific.
4. Se acepta la observación. Se reviso la introducción y se suprimieron párrafos de poco aporte al tema central. Sin embargo, por pedido de los otros revisores se ampliaron ciertos temas.
5. Section 111 to 128 should be defined more comprehensively and clearly
6. We agree. Lines 111 to 128 constitute an introductory paragraph of the methodology. Furthermore, this entire part has been now restructured and later detailed in order to clarify the corresponding activities.
7. Paragraph 2.1 should be shortened.
8. Comment accepted. Based on the suggestions realized also in conjunction by the other expert reviewers and yours in the introduction, this paragraph has been entirely restructured.
9. Are tables 1 and 2 your tables? if not provide references, also compare the results with other authors and their references.
10. Yes indeed. Table 2 was created by us. According to APA 7th edition standards, the following note has been placed under Table 1: “based on the research of Crisanto, et al., 2022”. In addition, the source was clarified on lines 171 and 172.
11. In your work, pay attention to the labels as you define certain terms.
12. The observation is accepted. In the corresponding lines it was clarified that in the research by Guayasamín, 2021 and Crisanto, et al., 2022, the criteria for the categorization of the Unsuitable, Light, Medium, Complete and Very Suitable zones were defined.
13. Why didn't you use more cemetery locations for sampling and then give a comparative analysis?
14. Agreed to change and improve the clarification. Since there were seventy cemeteries in the study area, due to resource restrictions it was decided to perform a representative sampling. To do this, the statistical formula (1) was applied with a confidence level of 95% per category, finding that the universes (the total number of cemeteries in each category) were small, so the required sample was practically the same universe, except for the "slightly adequate" category. Given this situation, it was decided to take three cemeteries per category, thereby establishing a statistical trend and adjusting to the available resources, mainly economic factors.

(1)

Where,

• N is the population size
• z is the z-score
• e is the margin of error
• p is the standard of deviation

Although the sample of 13 cemeteries may be limited to generalize the results to a broader population, it allows identifying trends and patterns within each category. The current study is an initial exploration (pilot study), which provides valuable information for the design of broader and more representative research in the future.

8. Indicate the latitude and longitude in the paper, that is, the exact location of the sampling.
9. This is correct, therefore, in Table 3, two columns were added to place the latitude and longitude coordinates of each sampling site.
10. The analysis methods were not described to you in the right way.
11. Agreed. The methodology was restructured and the methods used are described in detail.
12. You need to better connect the results and the analysis.
13. Agreed. The analysis was completely restructured, seeking a better connection with the generated results.
14. In your research as if you have done only a part, additional analyzes are needed to make the research comprehensive.
15. Here we disagree profoundly, we all due respect. The scope of the present research determines a study during two seasons, being dry and rainy. Nonetheless, the extension of the study is suggested in the recommendations section.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text and clarify misinterpretations, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made careful revisions and replies to both the major issues and minor issues that I have presented. I am pleased with their revision work and recommend it for publication.