Simple and Complex Substrates (Sugar, Acetate and Milk Whey) for In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater with Nitrate and Actinide Contamination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

Clarify the research objective: State the main objective of the study explicitly. Specify the purpose of the research and what the study aims to achieve.

 

Provide context and background information: Before discussing the specific research objectives, provide more context and background information on the contamination issue and the importance of studying it. This will help readers understand the significance of the research.

 

Improve clarity and precision: Some sentences in the text are lengthy and complex. Break them down into shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability and understanding. Use precise and concise language to convey the intended meaning.

Materials and Methods

Specify the source and location of the water samples: Provide more information about the specific highly polluted area from which sample 1 was taken and the uncontaminated area from which sample 2 was collected. This will help readers understand the geographical context of the study.

Specify the experimental conditions: Provide information on the duration and specific conditions under which the nitrate ions were added to sample 1 in the laboratory experiments.

Check sentence structure and clarity: The sentence "Nitrate ions were added to sample 1 at concentration 1000 mg/L ex situ" is repetitive and can be revised for better clarity. Consider rephrasing it to clearly convey the experimental procedure and its purpose.

Clarify the source and location of the rock samples: Provide more information about the specific contaminated and background areas from which the rock samples were obtained. This will help readers understand the geographical context and the nature of contamination.

Specify the sampling strategy: Explain the rationale behind selecting different distances from the repository when collecting the loam samples. Elaborate on the criteria or factors considered in choosing these specific sampling points.

Clarify the leaching procedure: Provide a clearer description of the leaching process, including the duration of leaching and the specific methods used to assess equilibrium (e.g., measurements after 15 minutes, 75 minutes, etc.).

Results

Expand on the interpretation of results: Provide more detailed explanations and interpretations of the presented results. Explain the significance and implications of the findings and relate them back to the research objectives.

 

Revise and clarify sentence structure: Some sentences in the text are long and complex. Break them down into shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability and understanding. Use precise and concise language to convey the intended meaning.

 

Provide more context and background: Consider providing more background information or references to support the findings and help readers understand the broader context of the research.

 

Conclusions

Provide specific numerical values: When discussing the efficiency of microbial activation and the impact of hydroxylamine on neptunium mobility, provide specific numerical values or ranges to support the conclusions. This will enhance the precision and clarity of the findings.

Expand on the coagulation effect: Provide more details and explanations regarding the coagulation effect of actinide-containing colloidal particles and suspensions. Clarify how this effect reduces the risk of colloidal and pseudocolloidal transfer of radionuclides.

Elaborate on the interactions between hydroxylamine and iron-containing minerals: Provide more details and explanations about the specific interactions between hydroxylamine and iron-containing minerals that can affect neptunium mobility. Discuss the possible mechanisms or processes involved in these interactions.

 

Include more context and implications: Expand on the implications of the findings and their significance for remediation strategies. Discuss how the results can be applied in the development of bioremediation techniques for neptunium-contaminated rocks and the importance of considering the rock composition in such strategies.

The quality of the English is generally good, with some areas that could benefit from improvement. The texts convey the scientific information and findings clearly, but there are instances where sentence structure, word choice, and grammar could be refined for better clarity and readability. Some sentences are long and complex, making it harder to follow the flow of information. Additionally, there are a few instances where the meaning of certain phrases or statements could be clarified to ensure better understanding. Overall, with some revisions and refinements, the English in the text can be further improved for enhanced scientific communication.

Author Response

We thank you for your time and important comments on our manuscript, which we have endeavored to correct.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Simple and complex substrates (sugar, acetate and milk whey) for in situ bioremediation of groundwater with nitrate and actinide contamination”, suggests ways to remediate polluted sites (from nitrates, and actinides).

The authors have tested several substances which can remove nitrates and actinides from the groundwater. According to their results, they suggest some optimum substances which can be used for better results.

In my opinion the article has scientific merit soundness.

However, some moderate changes are required.

Abstract

In my opinion the abstract should be enriched with further comments. The abstract must introduce the reader to the content and the idea of the manuscript. The authors are suggested to provide further text, providing the methods and the procedures they have followed.

2.  Materials and methods

The manuscript says: “The study used a water sample taken from a highly polluted area 1 and from an uncontaminated area (sample 2)”

Please change with “The study used a water sample taken from a highly polluted area (sample 1) and from an uncontaminated area (sample 2)”

Line 95 table 1:

column 1 presents an unpolluted sample, while column 2 presents a polluted sample.

Please change the order of columns to agree with the manuscript.

3. Results

Please explain the table into the manuscript. There are 2 columns. Refer to them and explain them.

Line 177: “Gl, sodium acetate” please change with “Gl and sodium acetate”

3.2  Distribution of radionuclide forms in the solution/sediment system in a sample of  natural water.

Figure 1: Please explain the labels:

NA

MW

Gl

Ac

3.3  Actinides size distribution in a sample of natural water after substrates addition.

From figure 2A to figure 2D, please provide a short paragraph to explain each one of them.

Line 256 “3.4 Desorption of radionuclides from rock samples in the presence of substrates”

I think the number of the paragraph is 3.5

Figures 4 – 6, Please present them according to the format of the Journal.

4.      Conclusion

Enrich the manuscript with some environmental cases, where the suggested method can be applied.

Line 11: “wastes repositories” I suggest “waste repositories”.

Line 12: “urgent problem” I suggest “common problem” or “serious problem”.

Line 26: “Am” please change with “Americium (Am)”

Line 32: “radioactive waste poses”

Maybe with a comma would be better “radioactive waste, poses”.

Line 38: “after their more than 50 years of operation”

Maybe “after having operated for more than 50 years” is better.

Line 177: “Gl, sodium acetate” please change with “Gl and sodium acetate”

Author Response

We thank you for your time and important comments on our manuscript, which we have endeavored to correct.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your responce to my comments

the manuscript can be published