Integration of Isotopic and Nuclear Techniques to Assess Water and Soil Resources’ Degradation: A Critical Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsapplsci-3174277-peer-review-v1: Integration of isotopic and nuclear techniques to assess water and soil resources degradation. A critical review.
The paper is well written and despite some minor mistakes that do not affect the quality of the article, it can be published in this journal after minor revisions. This review on integration of isotopic and nuclear techniques to assess water and soil resources degradation, is very easy to read and contains a very recent bibliography (2018 to 2024) making this study truly topical.
- Lines 160-168: I think you don't need to literally write “beryllium-7 (7Be), cesium-137 (137Cs)……Just write 7Be, 137Cs, …. Is there a difference between 210Pb and 210Pbex (see lines 1610 and 165).
- Lines 609-610: Figure 2. Graphical scale, geographic coordinates and legend are needed here.
- Lines 673-674: Figure 3. The legend is incomplete. What do the different colors in the figure represent? Same question for thick red lines and those that are less thick. please specify these details in the legend for easier reading.
- Lines 697-698: Figure 4. Idem. The legend is incomplete. Geographic coordinates are also needed here.
Lines 715-716: Figure 5. Graphical scale, geographic coordinates and legend are also needed here.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is interesting, but there is a lack of coherence in some parts.
The abstract is too general and does not encourage people to read the whole thing. Please include in the revised version the motivation for addressing the topic, the methodology and the main conclusions.
31-39 Please include the microplastic threads.
41-43 I would be careful with this statement.
44-46 please add references
98-110 please move this to the method section
Introduction - in general is quite difficult to break down into paragraphs. Please rewrite it and try to make a connection between the sections.
Don't use full stops at the end of paragraphs and section titles.
149 please explain the abbreviations
2.1. Please state the equations.
149-156 What is the connection between these 2 paragraphs? It sounds like 2 different texts. Or move it to a more appropriate paragraph, e.g. 2.2.
453 Indices
2.4.1. Remove this sub-section as there is only one and make it a full text within 2.4.
Fig. 1 Including 2024 when we are in the middle of the year can be misleading.I think it would be better to focus on the 2018-2023 period.
639 Indices
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntegration of isotopic and nuclear techniques to assess water and soil resources degradation is an interesting research topic. In this study, the author tries to use the research review to summarize the current research status. But overall, it still looks rough. Need further modification and improvement. It is suggested that the manuscript be revised and resubmitted.
1. Overall, the innovation of the paper needs to be further clarified.
2. In the introduction, the current research status is more of a simple list, which needs to be further condensed and summarized.
3. Overall, the manuscript requires a native English speaker to polish the language.
4. The current research situation needs to be closely focused on the main line of research, and in this respect, the author still needs to further summarize rather than simply describe.
5. It is suggested that the author present a table and a graph to show the current distribution of relevant research, so as to make the manuscript more readable.
6. Some statements in the manuscript need to be supported by relevant literature, such as lines 486-488.
7. Table 1 and Figure 1 need further embellishment.
8. Figure 2 also needs further embellishment.
9. The conclusion part of the manuscript needs to be further condensed and put forward future research prospects.
10. The content and expression of the present manuscript are still quite rough and need to be further perfected and modified.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
the manuscript requires a native English speaker to polish the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors review discusses the application of isotopic and nuclear techniques, specifically Fallout Radionuclide (FRN), Fingerprint (FP), and Isotope Hydrology (IH), in evaluating the degradation of soil and water resources. This review is a valuable resource for scientists, policymakers, and environmental managers looking to understand and address the complex issues surrounding soil and water resource degradation. It provides a guidance for further research and the development of effective management strategies.
The manuscript lacks under several aspects：
(1) In this paper, the citation of references and the format of tables are recommended to be modified in accordance with the Word template of Applied Sciences.
(2) I think that Abstract is brief and I suggest improving it. The focus of the introduction is unclear and the objective of the manuscript is missing. What is the aim in providing this review? This is what should guide the authors in writing the review firstly.
(3) Some statements are missing data to support it.(e.g. CSSI included as tracers in the FP technique have demonstrated a high level of discrimination for assessing the proportions of sediments from different types of land use as sources. And examples or results should be provided high level of discrimination for assessing the proportions of sediments from different types of land use as sources.)
It is an interesting article with practical application. With improvement, it may be suitable for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCompared with the first submitted version, the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved, but there are still some problems that need to be improved.
1. In Figure 2, you can choose either the warp and weft net or the compass.
2. Moderate editing of English language required.
3. Figure 3 needs further embellishment.
4. Figure 4 also needs further embellishment.
5. The legend and mnemonics in Figure 5 are too messy and need to be redrawn.
6. The abstract of this manuscript needs to give quantitative conclusions after the review and future research prospects.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
