Fate and Transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

I have carefully read the whole revised article which is titled "Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil". I showed my new suggestions on the draft manuscript, and the authors could pay attention to them.Abstract

Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part. This part will be good after revision.

 Introduction

In this part, there are grammatical deficiencies, and much literature-based information is not cited. These deficiencies need to be corrected. I have added some major and minor corrections to the PDF file.  

Material and Method

This part should be under the site description. The missing parts in this section are the full description of the oversampling area, soil classification, climate, vegetation, and land use - information about which plants are grown, and showing the trial areas on the map will increase the value of the article.

The manuscript scientifically sounds good and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. But, some grammatical problems must be checked.

Results and Discussion

This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. But there is also some issue that needs to be cleared.

Conclusion

The conclusions presented well with the evidence and argument however, authors should indicate which practice is better in calcareous soil for heavy metal toxic effects. and what do you recommend to the reader?

 The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and they are properly showing the data. I would like to recommend adding your study site map.

 I would like to reconsider after major revision in line with the recommendations.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2086096
Title: Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil

Dear Editor,

We are highly thankful for reviewing for second time our manuscript entitled “Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil". We have considered all the comments and prepared their responses. The suggested contents have been removed, added or modified. A new part in M&M section and three new references were included and highlighted in blue color. On behalf of all the authors, I want to resubmit the revised manuscript and responses to the reviewer’s comments. Please be kind enough to consider the revised manuscript based on valuable comments from the reviewers.  

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Dr. Abdulaziz Alghamdi, PhD

Department of Soil Science (Soil physics)

College of Food and Agriculture Sciences

P.O. Box 92274

Riyadh, 11653

Saudi Arabia

Tel: +966-1-467-8445

Fax: +966-1-467-8440

e-mail: [email protected]

 

 

Responses to the Reviewer’s comments

Reviewer # 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the whole revised article which is titled "Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil". I showed my new suggestions on the draft manuscript, and the authors could pay attention to them.

Response:

Thanks for sparing time in reviewing the revised version of our manuscript. All new suggestions have been considered and included to the manuscript carefully.

 

Comment:

Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part. This part will be good after revision.

Response:

The manuscript has been revised accordingly, thanks for your valuable suggestions.

 

Comment:

Introduction

In this part, there are grammatical deficiencies, and much literature-based information is not cited. These deficiencies need to be corrected. I have added some major and minor corrections to the PDF file.  

Response:

All correction and comments in the pdf file were considered and corrected in the manuscript carefully. The manuscript has been revised thoroughly and all the English language and grammatical mistakes have been rectified.  

 

Comment:

Material and Method

This part should be under the site description. The missing parts in this section are the full description of the oversampling area, soil classification, climate, vegetation, and land use - information about which plants are grown, and showing the trial areas on the map will increase the value of the article.

Response:

The map in Figure 1 has been updated, which shows the experimental site. Some of the information about the study area have been added into the revised version of the manuscript as (line 104-11):

The climate of Thadiq area is characterized by desert climate with hot and dry summers. The mean daytime temperature ranges between 43°C - 45°C; while, the daytime temperature in winter ranges between 20°C - 25°C. The average summer night temperature is 28°C; whereas, the winter nights are cold and the temperature ranges between −2°C and 5°C. The area receives minimal to no precipitation in summer; however, only 51 mm the aver-age precipitation in winter. Due to the desert climate, the soils of Thadiq area are classified as Aridisols  (Vanisree et al 2022). The area depends on groundwater for irrigation. Various fruits and vegetables such as cucumbers, tomatoes, and date palm are planting in this area”.

 

Comment:

The manuscript scientifically sounds good and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. But, some grammatical problems must be checked.

Response:

Thank you for such encouraging comments. The manuscript has been revised thoroughly and all the English language and grammatical mistakes have been rectified.

 

Comment:

Results and Discussion

This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. But there is also some issue that needs to be cleared.

Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. The results and discussion section has been revised thoroughly and improved significantly.

 

Comment:

Conclusion

The conclusions presented well with the evidence and argument however, authors should indicate which practice is better in calcareous soil for heavy metal toxic effects, and what do you recommend to the reader?

Response:

The following part was included in conclusion section of the revised manuscript:

“Therefore, application of calcareous soils to adsorb Pb2+ and Cu2+ in contaminated water could serve as a cheaper and environment-friendly approach to remediate contaminated water”.

 

Comment:

The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and they are properly showing the data. I would like to recommend adding your study site map.

Response:

 

Thank you for this suggestion. The study site map has been included.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Accordingly, I consider the work will be useful in separation of Heavy metals, but the manuscript needs editing and modifying throughout before it should be considered for publication. The manuscript is also in need of general editing throughout. This includes incorrect grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, typos and awkwardly phrased/unclear statements throughout the manuscript. Many of these items change, what I feel, is the intended meaning of several statements or simply makes for difficult reading. Additionally, some figures need to be further modified to make them perfectly represent the experimental results and make it easier for readers to understand. So it canbe publish after Major Revision.

Other comments:

1. How to choose the flow rate of column separation system in the experiment? If the experimental parameters are used to optimize, the first column is not the same as the second column, why is there no difference in the flow rate selection?

2. Some of the figures in this article need to be redrawn, such as Fig 2, 3,4 the blank effect of inserting a table into the corresponding image is better.

3. There are some mistake need to correct, for example line 220 “cdsorption” should be “adsorption”; line 242 “adsorption”; lin2 249 “adsoption”.

4.There are many factors affect the adsorption properties, such as the concentration of humic acid, temperauure, ion species and ionic strength. Can you add these parts in you manuscript?

5. Please unify the formate of the references, for example 24,25

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2086096
Title: Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil

Dear Editor,

We are highly thankful for reviewing for second time our manuscript entitled “Fate and transport of Lead and Copper in Calcareous Soil". We have considered all the comments and prepared their responses. The suggested contents have been removed, added or modified. A new part in M&M section and three new references were included and highlighted in blue color. On behalf of all the authors, I want to resubmit the revised manuscript and responses to the reviewer’s comments. Please be kind enough to consider the revised manuscript based on valuable comments from the reviewers.  

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Dr. Abdulaziz Alghamdi, PhD

Department of Soil Science (Soil physics)

College of Food and Agriculture Sciences

P.O. Box 92274

Riyadh, 11653

Saudi Arabia

Tel: +966-1-467-8445

Fax: +966-1-467-8440

e-mail: [email protected]

 

 

Responses to the Reviewer’s comments

 

Reviewer # 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accordingly, I consider the work will be useful in separation of Heavy metals, but the manuscript needs editing and modifying throughout before it should be considered for publication. The manuscript is also in need of general editing throughout. This includes incorrect grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, typos and awkwardly phrased/unclear statements throughout the manuscript. Many of these items change, what I feel, is the intended meaning of several statements or simply makes for difficult reading. Additionally, some figures need to be further modified to make them perfectly represent the experimental results and make it easier for readers to understand. So it canbe publish after Major Revision.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments/suggestions. We have considered all the comments and suggestions while revising our manuscript. The manuscript has been revised thoroughly based on the suggestions and comments of the reviewer.

 

Comment:

1. How to choose the flow rate of column separation system in the experiment? If the experimental parameters are used to optimize, the first column is not the same as the second column, why is there no difference in the flow rate selection?

Response:

Yes, the experimental parameters were used in this study. However, as the study was comprising of sorption-batch and column experiments, different flow rates were not tested in this study. However, we have plans to further expand this research by using different flow rates in future to unsaturated soil conditions (vadose zone).

 

Comment:

2. Some of the figures in this article need to be redrawn, such as Fig 2, 3,4 the blank effect of inserting a table into the corresponding image is better.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. These Figures have been updated now.

 

Comment:

3. There are some mistake need to correct, for example line 220 “cdsorption” should be “adsorption”; line 242 “adsorption”; lin2 249 “adsoption”.

Response:

These mistake have been corrected.

 

Comment:

4. There are many factors affect the adsorption properties, such as the concentration of humic acid, temperature, ion species and ionic strength. Can you add these parts in you manuscript?

Response:

Yes, we are agreed to your comment. The text has been added in the revised manuscript as “Indeed, there are many factors affect the adsorption properties, such as the concentration of humic acid, temperature, ion species and ionic strength [12, 13]”.

 

Comment:

5. Please unify the formate of the references, for example 24,25

Response:

Theses references were unified.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

New corrections are interesting. However quite a few typing errors still remain. Please do correct!

- line 61: is influenced

- line 213: until

- line 220: adsorption

- line 226: has also revealed

- line 227: adsorb

- line 235:(Table 3).

- line 242: adsorption

- line 249: adsorption

- line 249: more than that of Cu2+

- on page seven line 269: "best fitted to Langmuir model"

                           line 286:"best fitness of Freundlich isotherm"

  The authors should decide Which is the best fit? The text is contradictory.

- line 320: and Pb2+

- line 326: is shown

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer’s comments

 

Reviewer # 3

 

Comment 1: line 61: is influenced

Response: We are highly thankful to the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript for the 3^rd time. We have revised the manuscript. “in influenced” in the text is corrected as “is influenced”   

 

Comment 2: line 213: until

Response: The word “until” is corrected as “until”

 

Comment 3: line 220: adsorption

Response: It has been corrected as “adsorption”

 

Comment 4: line 226: has also revealed

Response: The text has been modified and corrected.

 

Comment 5: line 227: adsorb

Response: The word “adsorp” is corrected as “adsorb”

 

Comment 6: line 235:(Table 3).

Response: “Table 1 is replaced by “Table 3” in the text.

 

Comment 7: line 242: adsorption

Response: It has been corrected as “adsorption”

 

Comment 8: line 249: adsorption

Response: It has been corrected as “adsorption”

 

Comment 9: line 249: more than that of Cu²⁺

Response: It has been corrected as “more than that of Cu²⁺”^.

 

Comment 10: on page seven line 269: "best fitted to Langmuir model"

 line 286:"best fitness of Freundlich isotherm" The authors should decide Which is the best fit? The text is contradictory.

Response: Thank you for indicating it. We have modified the data and corrected this mistake as “These results suggested that Cu²⁺ and Pb²⁺ adsorption was best fitted to the Freundlich model (R² = 0.96–0.98), followed by Langmuir model (R² = 0.91–0.95) (Table 4). The fitness of the Freundlich and Langmuir models suggested both multi-layer and mono-layer adsorption”.

 

Comment 11: line 320: and Pb²⁺

Response: It is corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Comment 12: line 326: is shown 

Response: It has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have considered all my suggestions into account and ensured that the article is more original and scientific approaches. In this way, the article has reached an acceptable level.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

it can be accepted at present

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work tryed to reveal the fate and transport of Lead and Copper in calcareous soil, but heavy metals transport to groundwater relies on the soil characteristics such as carbonate and clay minerals, organic matter content, soil’s pH, and some other factors, this work can not explain the influence from carbonate and clay minerals, organic matter content, soil’s pH, and some other factors, but just some regular adsorption experiment results. there are a lot of previous studies that have been clarified this issue, the results are boring and lack innovation enough.

1. The types and sampling of soil samples directly affect the results of adsorption experiments. The representativeness and universality of sampling are not fully explained in this paper.

2. Experimental design did not design repeated experiments, resulting in low reliability of data.

3. In the intra-particle model, the value of Cu2+ “a” is higher than that of Pb2+, the meaning of “a” is not mentioned in the paper; The “Ki” of Pb2+ is higher than that of Cu2+, which does not mean that calcareous soil has a good removal rate of these two ions. why?

4. L268  In addition, the Cu2+ sorption onto calcareous soil is defined by L-shaped; however, the Pb2+ is described by H-shaped adsorption isotherm (Figure 3). I disagree with this conclusion. How did the author arrive at this judgment?

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this paper very interesting and well written. However some small corrections are required.

- lines 40-41: to be solved

- line 129: Black

- line 181: constant

- line 187: replications

- line 200: columns

- line 201: sections

- line 215: [35-37]

- Table 3: ki instead of Ki

- line 245: at an initial pH

- line 252: less than that of Cu2+

- line 265: heterogenous

- line 277: and leading to less sorption

- line 301: than for Cu2+

Reviewer 3 Report

 Heavy metals transport to groundwater relies on the soil characteristics such as carbonate and clay minerals, organic matter content, soil’s pH, and some other factors. Why in this manuscript the clay minerals, organic matter content, soil’s pH was not mentioned. Absolutely the paper is not enough experiments to show “the help in understanding the fate of heavy metals in calcareous soils”. And the combination mechanism is not adequately described，so at present it can not be accepted.