A Radiological Risk Assessment of ²²⁶Ra, ²²⁸Ra and ⁴⁰K Isotopes in Tilapia Fish and its Granitic Environment in Singida Municipality, Tanzania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Language and sentence structure need revision. 

- Abstract does not describe the problem but what is to be done or was done. The abstract all in all destroys the purpose of the study and puts forward the question: is this a true research problem?  Change

- The introduction should present the problem and its impact. Is there a real problem or otherwise why did the authors bother doing the work?

- Radionuclides are something that is naturally present as was mentioned. so what is the point? contamination comes from mainly natural sources.

- Introduction is too narrative. Address the problem at hand.

- Two contradictory statements in the last sentence of the 2nd para and the third para: it is mentioned that it is important to measure radionuclides in food and there are many studies of radionuclides in food in Tanzania.  Again this raises the question of why the work was done.

- What was the sampling program type? random simple or otherwise?

- were the samples combined for testing after being randomly selected?

- Radioactivity was measured by what instrument?

- The title states that there was a risk of radioactivity and the manuscript indicates otherwise. Another thing, the authors state that there were a number of studies on the same point and yet there was no indication of the  importance of this study

-

 

 

 the work is not properly formulated and the abstract destroys the study by stating that there was nothing to discover in the area of study.

The title states that there was a risk of radioactivity and the manuscript indicates otherwise. Another thing, the authors state that there were a number of studies on the same point and yet there was no indication of the  importance of this study

Author Response

"Please see the attachement" in below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is an interesting piece of work, however it should be improved in several parts before formal acceptance.

- Introduction should be improved

- English should be improved

- Discussion should be improved

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 I recommend focusing on the following aspects:

Punctuation: Ensure the appropriate use of commas, periods, and other punctuation marks. This will help clarify sentence structures and separate ideas effectively.

Sentence structure: Pay attention to sentence construction, including subject-verb agreement, consistent tense usage, and proper word order. This will enhance the coherence and flow of your writing.

Proofreading: Carefully proofread the entire manuscript to identify and correct any spelling and grammatical errors. Additionally, consider using grammar-checking tools or seeking assistance from a proficient English speaker to ensure accuracy.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" in the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Data about the levels of radionuclide  activities in natural environment  in African in general rare but in Tanzania in particular are very rare, therefore I think such paper should be preferred  for publication. However I have some certain doubts about the work itself and its presentation as well.  

Row 148-149 there is a sentence:
“Samples were then stored for 28 days for Uranium and Thorium radionuclide daughter’s to attain secular equilibrium before gamma spectrometric analysis [17]. “

It a half-true only. Such long time assure equilibrium between  Bi-214 or Pb-214 with Ra-226 and between Tl-208 and Th-228. However, the equilibrium between the Tl-208, Pb-212 or Ac-228  and Th-232 requires some  10 years at least due to 2 years half time of Th-228 with  6 years half time of Ra-228. Therefore in whole paper please change Th-232 into Th-228 for data based on Tl-208 or Pb—212 gamma lines and Ra-228 if it is based on Ac-228 lines.

Row 154 “The 214Bi  (609.3 keV) was preferred to determine concentrations of 226Ra instead of 214Pb to avoid  noise from the detector protector made by the same element.” – what do you mean. What sort of mechanism cause here any “noise”?

Rows 156, 157. There are two sentences which tell differently.

First: “The activity for 232Th was  measured from 212Pb (238.6 keV), 228Ac (338.3 and 911.1 keV) and 208Tl (583.2 keV). “

Second: “The 228Ac was used to determine the activity of 232Th”

I think that if you use Ac-228 with only 28 days waiting you do measurement of Ra-228, not Th-232.

If you use Pb-212 and Tl-208 you  do measurements of Th-228, not Th-232.

Please correct this, especially present the results based on Ac-228 (Ra-228) and Ob-212,Tl-208 (Th-228) separately.

Rows 198 and further.

I suggest that in such presentation of results each result consist of: value, value of uncertainty, unit. Please avoid skipping the unit after results for certain nuclide. Please take under consideration my above comments on results for Ra-228 (when based on Ac-228) or for Th-232 (when based on Tl-208 or Pb-212 – please also note the split in the last part of Th series decay into two branches, which makes results for Tl-208 to be corrected by branching ratio). When you present the mean results what is the presented uncertainty. Is it standard deviation or mean error? By the way – the values for uncertainties are ver small what makes me worry about them.

Please use appropriate number of significant digits in presenting the numbers. There is a rule of “two significant digits” in uncertainty, which governs how one  should round your results.

What is the  meaning of single characters which appears after numbers in Tables?

I am not commenting the Discussion chapter, sicne I think many number are likely to be revised, when you take into consideration, that it is Th-228 or Ra-228 not the Th-232, what you have been measured.  

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" in the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The review topic is interesting and the manuscript is well-written. Therefore, the manuscript has some problems that are listed below:

 

1) Please, add more numerical results in the abstract. It will make the article impactful and clear to the readers. Also, add the impact of your study.

 

2) The authors mentioned, "Many studies have been done in Tanzania about the distribution of natural radioactivity in sediments, soils, surface water and foodstuffs”. Do you have the information about 226Ra, 232Th and 40K on other dates? Considering you quantified the samples between May and June, it can provide an overview and seasonality of the concentration.

 

3) Do this lake water used for drinking? If yes, improve the discussion of the activity concentration in water.

 

4) The discussion should be improved. Which factor can affect the levels of these radionuclides activity? Can the climate change affect the levels? Can the concentration vary during the year?

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" in the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved with the inclusion and detailing of the required information

Reviewer 4 Report

The quality of the manuscript has increased significantly.