Natural Radioactivity in Soil and Radiological Risk Assessment in Lișava Uranium Mining Sector, Banat Mountains, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment

This study examines the spatial distribution of uranium and thorium series and radioactive potassium concentrations in surface soils at the Lișava uranium mining sector in Romania and assesses the risk of external exposure.

 

However, the comparison was made with the median values for the entire world provided by UNSCEAR. If the purpose of the study is to include a radiological risk assessment, it may be necessary to modify the description.

 

 

Specific comment 1 Abstract, line 14

“Bq/Kg” should be “Bq/kg”. The same applies below.

 

 

Specific comment 2 Keyword, line 24

Since this study is limited to External exposure as a radiation risk assessment, it would be better to clarify this.

 

Specific comment 3 Introduction, line 34

“… a low enough amount of uranium to be economically profitable”

The low concentration may not be economically valuable as uranium ore. Isn't this statement intended to state that it is a waste and has no value as a uranium ore?

 

Specific comment 4 Introduction, line 48

Although it seems to be common knowledge in this field, LREEs should be spelled out as “Light Rare Earth Elements”.

 

Specific comment 5 Introduction, line 83

“URSS” is supposed to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Romanian, so it would be better to write it in English.

 

Specific comment 6 Introduction, line 97

The term “gamma absorbed dose rates”

Absorbed doses should be described in such a way that the absorbing substance can be identified.

 

Specific comment 7 Materials and Methods 2.1. Study area and sampling, line 143

“Soil sampling was done by manual borehole drilling at a depth range of 0 -15 cm.”

The reviewer thinks authors also need to present information on the radius of the borehole.

 

Specific comment 8 2.2. Sample preparation, line 158

“, stored in plastic containers (Marinelli type) for 30 days”

It would be good to describe the sealing method for radiative equilibrium as well.

 

Specific comment 9 2.3. Analytical techniques, line 174

The mass number should be in left shoulder letters.

 

Specific comment 10 2.3. Analytical techniques, line 175

The mass number of Ac would be 228, not 28.

 

Specific comment 11 Table 1

Colons should be removed at References.

 

Specific comment 12 Line 206

“/” is missing for K.

 

Specific comment 13 Table 2

It would be good to have an explanation of the abbreviations so that it can be understood by itself as a table.

The unit of DR should be indicated.

 

Specific comment 14 Line 224

There is an extra space after the slash.

 

Specific comment 15 Figure 4

The fitting curve depicted in the histogram needs to be explained.

 

Specific comment 16 Figure 4

Although it seems obvious to the reader, an explanation would be needed regarding boxes and whiskers in box plots.

 

Specific comment 17 Table 3

Although it is described in the text, it should also be clearly stated in the table that the arithmetic means are shown.

 

Specific comment 18 Table 3

Referred Table 5 of UNSCEAR 2000 would indicate median concentrations of these radionuclides not “recommended values”.

 

Specific comment 19 Line 282

“40K”

The mass number should be in left shoulder letters.

 

Specific comment 20 Line 305

“…those recommended by UNESCEAR”

Table 5 of UNSCEAR (not UNESCEAR)2000 would indicate median concentrations of these radionuclides not “recommended values”.

 

Specific comment 21 Line 331

“3.4. Pearson’s correlation analysis,”

It would be good to have information on the confidence intervals for the coefficients.

 

Specific comment 22 Line 429

“Appendix A”

It would be good to have uncertainty information about the measured values.

 

Specific comment 23

It is recommended to have a description regarding data availability.

 

Specific comment 24 Line 431

“References”

The font size of the literature numbers should be aligned.

Author Response

The reply letter is in the attached PDF file. Authors' answers are marked with blue font.

The authors thank the reviewer for review and suggestions for improving the manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The reply letter is in the attached PDF file. Authors' answers are marked with blue font.

The authors thank the reviewer for review and suggestions for improving the manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf