Geochemical and Isotope Anomalies in Sioma River Gorge, Western Tajikistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript entitled " GEOCHEMICAL AND ISOTOPE ANOMALIES IN SIOMA RIVER GORGE, CENTRAL TAJIKISTAN " studies the activity concentrations of the natural radionuclides ⁴⁰K, ²¹²Pb, ²¹²Bi, ²¹⁴Pb, ²¹⁴Bi and ²¹⁰Pb, anthropic ¹³⁷Cs as well as mass fractions of natural Th and U at the confluence of Varzob and Sioma rivers (Central Tajikistan). Through gamma spectrometry, the authors report an increase in the activity concentrations in the radionuclides of the Th and U series as well as ¹³⁷Cs and ²¹⁰Pb, while using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis they find an increase in the natural fractions of Th and U which are higher than those found in the Upper Continental Crust.

The authors present a concise introduction where the most relevant aspects from a geological and climatological point of view are highlighted in the study region, which will later serve to argue the results obtained.

Regarding the methodology, the authors on two occasions rely on reference 7 in order not to detail aspects related to radiometric measurements and when this reference is analyzed, no important aspects are found either, such as the identification of photopeaks and the used energy calibration of gamma spectrometer. This aspect I think needs to be improved.

On the other hand, the authors present a section of results that is not consistent, that is, they show two graphs (Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b) and a table (Table A2) with their results, of which they only comment on Fig 2b. I think they should merge the results and discussion section into one and rearrange it.

With regard to the discussion of the results, there are some aspects that should be analyzed in more detail (the comments and questions are in the pdf).

Because of these reasons, I consider the paper could be suitable for publication in this journal after major revision.

These suggestions, some questions/comments and spelling errors are made to the authors, and they are included in the review file.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

The manuscript entitled " GEOCHEMICAL AND ISOTOPE ANOMALIES IN SIOMA RIVER GORGE, CENTRAL TAJIKISTAN" by Djamshed A. Abdushukurov is an interesting work that was systematically achieved. The results of the paper are interesting and consistent with our understanding of the given results. But The paper needs to be improved in language, and some Major corrections would enhance the quality of the paper.

 

• The abstract needs to add apart from the conclusion of the paper.
• Line 11 correct neighbouring to (neighboring)
• Line 26 is located change to (occurred)
• Line 29 classified as Dfb? what do you mean Dfb?
• Line 31 Sioma basin is located (located or represented)
• Line 32 although in some places they??? form shallow loess soils (Delete they)
• Line 33, first of all, correct into (Firstly)
• Line 41 taking into Changed to (considering)
• Line 44 correct neighbouring to (neighboring)
• Line 48 Tajikistan to collect more 9 samples representative for the environmental radioactivity of 49 Sioma river sediments (Nine-samples have been collected from Sioma river sediments for the purpose of radiological studies.
• Line 60 is wrong correct to are
• Line 83 The tributaries of the Sioma river are in the fact (add the)
• Line 109 UCC one of 9???? ((Unit) What do you mean by mentioning this value 3.9????
• Line 108 on fig 2b, change to (b) showing the UCC
• Line 115 then correct to (than)
• Line 119 Behaviour change into (behavior)
• Line 157 results that the major contribution to discrimination 158 between radionuclides comes, in a more or less equal measure, from all sapling points, 159 Factor 1 being responsible for more than of 81 % of total variance. A complex sentence that needs paraphrasing

concerning natural

• Line 162 radioactivity along Varzob river) You can see DOI:10.21315/jps2019.30.3.3;

 

• Line 165 the Th/U ration varied around 4.3 unit? 166 ± 0.8 unit? i.e., not far from the 3.9 unit? characteristic of the UCC[15] please give (Units) and compare Th/U ration by new work, such doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2020.109493;

 

• ) Line 165 You can see doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1845666
• Line 168 correct neighbouring to (neighboring)
• Line 170 please give units for radioactive elements in Table 1
• Line 178 The final results (Delete final)
• Line 179 similar to change to like
• Line 184 most probable (the right probables, Plural, not singular)
• Line 185 facilitate (facilitates Plural, not singular

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think the improvement in the paper is remarkable after the suggestions .

Now I consider that the paper can be published in its current form.

Best regards 

Reviewer 2 Report

Since the paper improved considerably, I recommend the paper for publication.