A Practical Procedure to Determine Natural Radionuclides in Solid Materials from Mining
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main objective of this study is the practical and validated procedure of determination of natural radionuclides concentrations in mining samples using gamma and alpha spectrometry. Even if the manuscript does not have significant scientific novelty, it presents important method of calibration. A large amount of data is used for research, and the methods are described in detail. This study can be of great importance for the development of technology for the researchers in the field. I believe the manuscript could be published
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please consider the following comments.
- General comment: the document seems unbalanced as it presents (or even repeat, such as figure e and Table A.6) many numerical results while providing few explanations about the methodology used (e.g. the interference term, the determination of the coefficients of erquation3 or the lack of reference in Table A.5).
- Line 10: each word of the NORM extended designation should begin with capital letters;
- Line 11: please begin a new sentence instead of “and”
- Lines 15, 34, 43…: please eliminate in all the document subjective designations such as “very”
- line 16: please change “of the ratios of the activity concentration of” to “for all radionuclide of the ratios between the activity concentration and its ...”
- line 26: please eliminate “Consequently”
- line 36: please change “on” to “related to”
- line 38: please eliminate “the”
- line 41: please eliminate “products and”
- line 44: please change “is a NORM” to “is classified as a NORM”
- line 44: please eliminate “which is possible to be known”
- line 45: please change “one” to “metric”
- line 48: please introduce the subscript “i” after “radionuclide”
- line 52: please change “emitter” to “emission”
- line 52: please change “that are contained in each sample of interest “ to “suitable”
- line 53: please remove “to determine them”
- line 60: please remove “considering all previous facts,”
- line 63: please change “in the case of the gamma” to “for gamma”
- line 64: please change “ones” to “emitters”
- line 71: please indicate the brand and model of the germanium detector
- line 71: please justify the designation”XtRa”
- Line 71 to 76: please present more details about the experimental set-up of the germanium detector, such as energy range, absolute energy calibration, dead-time, acquisition time…
- line 79: please change “due to” to “since”
- line 81: please change “whose flow was fixes at” to “with pumping speed of”
- line 81: please specify how to pumping speed was “fixed”
- line 82: please add the minus symbol in “2.10-3”
- line 100: Table A.6 refers to results and should therefore be cited much later
-line 100: please review the numeration of the table as Table A.6 is cited before A.1, A.2….
- line 120: please provide more explanation about the “interference term”
- line 126: please provide explanations about the method used to determine the parameters ar1, ar2 and ar3 were calculated. It is possible to quantify the respective errors
- line 137: please place “is shown” just after “calculation”
- line 139: please used “recommended” instead of “very recommendable”
- line 142: please consider presenting a decay scheme of the NORM considered, explaining the radioisotopes involved and the secular equilibriums studied later in the text.
- line 146: something seems to be missing in “235U, and”
- line 150: please provide a reference for the equation presented
- line 164: please change “alpha-pure” to “pure alpha”
- line 167: please change “digestion” to “dissolution”
- line 167, figure 1: is the arrow at the end of the schematic from “aqueous phase (U)” to “electrodeposition” correct? Please show that 3 electrodeposition cells, one for each isotopes.
-line 168: please remove “thus”
- line 175: please change (Th and U) to “with the Th and U isotopes”.
- lines 168 to 190: please provide more details about the activities losses in the overall process (in columns, distinct phases….)
-line 204: please change “resulted” to “resulting”
- line 212: please reformulate “for this, is needed previously to …”
- line 216 –Figure 2: the 3 graphs composing Figure 2 must not be in 2 different pages. Please reassemble the 3 graphs into a single picture file.
- line 216: please place “for all samples” after “increases”
-line 223: please change “that are occasioning”
- line 231: please remove “very”
- line 246: please remove “in this section”
- line 253: please change “realize”
-line 266-268: please present the the RI index with table A.6 instead of figure 3.
-lines 266-268: Table A.5 too relevant to be presented in the Appendix. It should be presented much earlier in the text, maybe in the introduction.
Appendix: please provides unit for the different metric presented in all tables; such as ar1 and ar3 in Table A.3 or the concentrations in Table A.5
Appendix: Table A.2: please consider an inversion of the rows and columns so that all the table can be presenting without interruption.
Appendix: Table A.5: please provide a reference to justify the values presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The sentences throughout are too long. Shortening sentences will improve clarity and enjoyment of the read. E.g. The first sentence has over 70 words!
Pg. 2, Ln. 80 - "Furthermore, due to alpha-particles are characterized by having a high stopping power"... Delete 'due to'.
Pg. 3, Ln. 106 - reference to "thickness values", it is unclear as to the thickness of what.
Pg. 3, Ln. 108 - "empirical function", can you say more? Is there a reference?
Consider improving clarity of figure 2.
Try to avoid sentences that require use of the word respectively. Too many sentences are constructed in this manner: e.g., "Water contents were 92%, 128%, and 280% for samples 5, 6, and 18, respectively". It is much easier to read and decipher: "Water contents were 92% for Sample 5, 128% for Sample 6, and 280% for Sample 18".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 36: please remove “a“;
Line 44: please change “is classified” to “should be”;
Line 54: please place “suitable” just before “radiometric”;
Line 61: please change “to develop” to “at developing”;
Line 75: please specify at which energy the value of 38.4% is correct; or else remove this sentence concerning relative efficiency as it is of little interest;
Line 102: please change “since is typical” to “since it ids a typical”
Line 169: please provide details about the calibration of the Si detector for the detection of alpha-particles;
Line 285: please change “were plotted” to “are presented”;
Line 231 – Figure 2: please reassemble the 3 graph into a single picture to guarantee that these will be presented in the same page, for better understanding;
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
