Ecological Risk Evaluation and Source Identification of Heavy Metal Pollution in Urban Village Soil Based on XRF Technique

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the soil environment of a typical urban village was investigated to evaluate the soil heavy metal contamination and ecological risk using a combination of XRF in situ detection and laboratory sample analysis. Through XRF detection, 25 high-risk contamination points were selected and sampled for analysis and confirmation. The results showed that the measured values of Pb, Cu, Zn and Ni were significantly higher than the background ones, and the heavy metal concentrations and ecological risks were significantly higher in industrial areas than in residential areas. There is a significant pairwise correlation between Pb, Zn and Ni, and the enrichment of these heavy metals originates from similar auto related industries. Industrial and traffic pollution sources are the main factors leading to the enrichment of heavy metals in soil. This research is important for the improvement of the environment in urban village and has a guiding value for urban renewal and planning. Therefore, this manuscript can be published in this journal with a minor revision.

Specific comments:

1. It is advisable to add references in the following points：

• Lines 61:Lack of literature support for the first national soil survey on contamination from 2005 - 2013.
• Lines 120-121：Technical Guidelines for Investigation on Soil Contamination of Land for Construction (HJ 25.1-2019) and The Technical Specification for Soil Environmental Monitoring (HJ/T 166-2004).
• Lines 148:United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 6200.
• Lines 159:total-digestion EPA analytical reference method 3050B.
• Lines173-174:Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Development Land (GB36600-2018) and Risk Control Standard for Soil Contamination of Agricultural Land (GB15618-2018).

2. Lines 160-161:For Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg and As, which method of ICP-MS and Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometer was used to analyze the concentration respectively, please provide details.
3. The header of the first column in Table 2 and Table 3 needs to be corrected.
4. The first point in Figure 7 is too close to the vertical coordinate and it is recommended to modify it.
5. Please adjust the font in Table 7 to be consistent with other tables.
6. Lines 432:The results of SPI and Igeo reflect the higher concentration of Zn, and yet Er(Zn)was low. Please explain the possible reasons.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

The manuscript “Sustainability-1611375, Ecological Risk Evaluation and Source Identification of Heavy Metal Pollution in Urban Village Soil based on XRF Technique” deals with the heavy metal pollution for China’ s urban village. The authors reported that Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg and As concentrations of higher by the reason were traffic road, industrial area etc. that it was a problem for soil, ecological and human health.

Thanks for the detailed research. These problem could be seen in everywhere of the world and results of study are not astonishing which is a field-specific survey study, not a global one. 

Results of the manuscripts is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "Ecological Risk Evaluation and Source Identification of Heavy Metal Pollution in Urban Village Soil based on XRF Technique" by Liu et al deals with a very interesting topic of ecological risk assessment and heavy metal pollution in urban areas which is a very pertinent topic considering the present time pollution level. The manuscript has raised the concern very clearly, methodologies are to the point too, along with a good representation of the results. However, the following points need to be revised for further consideration:

• As mentioned in the abstract "The measured values of Pb, Cu, Zn and Ni were significantly higher than background values." and also in the Results and then discussion section; however, the exact background values are missing from the text. This needs to be mentioned for clarity.
• Just for example, the choice of words and sentence constructions need to be revised throughout the manuscript to make it more scientific and the meaning clear (Line no. 24 auto related, Line no. 26 agricultural sources pollution, Line no. 28 were short of environmental health awareness, Line no. 30 potential ecological risk and more throughout the manuscript). Please double-check all such words/ parts of sentences and revise them accordingly.
• Figures 1 and 2 can be better merged in one figure as they have the same field.
• The clarity and resolutions of figure 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be improved.
• The entire "Discussion" section from Line no. 381-481 is totally devoid of any supporting literature for the results obtained. The authors need to make clear the idea of what is "Discussion" section in a scientific manuscript. Please thoroughly revise it, put referencing for supporting the results, and discuss the results in a proper way.
• The authors must include their own viewpoints about the manuscript and future possibilities that arose from this manuscript at the end of the "Discussion" section in a few lines.
• Please write a concise "Conclusion" of your manuscript and some future prospects. The conclusion must not merely include only some copied lines from the abstract, introduction, and discussion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments are attached in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Ms. Annika Dong,

Thanks the author for revision. My  view was the reject.

 

Sincerely

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's comment.

Many thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

The major revision performed in the manuscript looks satisfactory. This makes the results and their discussion coherent and supported. The changes in figure arrangement and the changes in resolution make it clearer too. However, moderate grammatical changes are required to make it publishable.

Author Response

We appreciate your recognition of our revision. Some changes related grammar and word have been modified.

Many thanks.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have revised the paper as per the comments. I think the manuscript is acceptable in this form. 

Author Response

We appreciate your recognition of our revision. 

Many thanks.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.