Distribution, Formation and Human Health Risk of Fluorine in Groundwater in Songnen Plain, NE China
, Yanguo Teng 1,2,* and Yuanzheng Zhai 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report form
Manuscript ID: water-1403489
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Distribution, formation and human health risk of fluorine in 2 groundwater in Songnen Plain, NE China
Authors: Jianwei Wang et al.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper by Wang et al. focuses on the research on fluorine content, distribution and formation in the groundwater of Songnen Plain, NE China.. furthermore, thy treat the adverse effects on children and adults health. All of this is based on a systematic sampling and analysis of a great quantity of samples.
I consider that the study, I believe that although not entirely novel, the work presents a comprehensive treatment of the origin and distribution of fluorine as well as the possible processes of its formation and harmful effects on human health.
Title, abstract and introduction, are adequate to establish the objectives of the study and to know both the subject and the background of previous works by other authors.
Section 2 (Materials and methods) suffers from a lack of clarity in the exposition, not so much in the description of the study area and the methods used (which is also the case) but above all in the use of English that is not appropriate in a general point of view nor for a scientific publication. That is why I suggest in my report that it requires extensive editing of English language and style. In this respect, I provide in the pdf file, as an example and only in this section, some clarifications or suggestions for changes in the language and use of English.
The methodology is appropriate, perhaps too many details of well-known processes are given that could be avoided if the appropriate references were also given. I suggest to add some more reference in this section.
In the description of the equations, some acronyms of terms are not described, see details in the .pdf file.
The results and discussion section is direct and concise and makes clear the contributions of this study. The results are generally well presented and can be clearly followed both in the text and in the graphical support of the figures. However, some details need to pay attention in tables, figures and equations. Also, here, as in the methods section, the English should be improved throughout the paper.
- Figure 1, upper part, includes in the lower left corner a box that does not seem to be the correct one, at least I have not been able to understand what it is meant to represent.
- The heading of table 1 includes terms that do not appear in the table (Fe, Mn, Y, and As content).
- In figure 4, it would be desirable to place the fluorine concentration on the same axis in both graphs.
Perhaps this section suffers from little discussion with the conclusions of other studies that have also addressed the problems arising from high fluoride content in other areas. If possible, such a discussion would be welcome.
The conclusions summarise well the results and the main findings of the present study.
Authors should follow the journal's rules for the reference list, in particular with regard to the spaces behind the points.
In general, I think that the authors work is already quite advanced from the contents point of view, but major improvements must be made in the English used throughout the text. To help the authors, I also inserted several comments in the manuscript itself, in the pdf file.
Sincerely
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is lack real research objectives and a clear introduction. It has not really got the global studies into review for the analysis.
Your paper needs to first legitimate argument for why fluorine in groundwater could harmful and what are the causes that follow. The sample methods are not convincing the systematic methods of the sampling. Please kindly look
Withanachchi, S.S.; Ghambashidze, G.; Kunchulia, I.; Urushadze, T.; Ploeger, A. Water Quality in Surface Water: A Preliminary Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of the Mashavera River, Georgia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040621
Can you add the ISO standards for the quality assurance process of groundwater?
Results and discussion must be separated. You can mix them. The results should be clearly stated the research objectives. The discussion section need to compare the existing studies at the site and global.
Saxena, V., and Shakeel Ahmed. "Dissolution of fluoride in groundwater: a water-rock interaction study." Environmental geology 40.9 (2001): 1084-1087.
Saxena, V., and Shakeel Ahmed. "Inferring the chemical parameters for the dissolution of fluoride in groundwater." Environmental Geology 43, no. 6 (2003): 731-736.
Rao, N. Subba. "Fluoride in groundwater, Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 152, no. 1 (2009): 47-60.
Your conclusion is poor. You must explain clearly the scientific and policy contribution of the paper with the main findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
-
- The manuscript is not scientific paper but the case of study
- Introduction: lack of fluorine concentration comparison in different water bodies both natural and polluted, surface and groundwater
- Methods: complete: the period of sampling, the number of samples, how often, what about year season
- results: complete correlations with other pollution parameters and geological features of the sampling area
- results: aquifer flow changes should be considered in previous years and predicted for next years; what about this type of flow and F concentration; what about the volume of summarized water intake and F concentration
- based on suggested tips complete conclusions
- check carefully references, delete positions before 2000 and add some new with information from other parts of world, e.g.:
Journal of Ecological Engineering, 2018 19(4), pp. 167-175
E3S Web of Conferences 30,01013, 2018
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author conducted the revisions according to the reviewers' comments. I approve the manuscript for the publication.
Author Response
Authors highly appreciate the detailed and constructive comments from the reviewer and the academic editor. The comments from the academic editor have revised the manuscript accordingly, with all the comments being addressed. The revised text is highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend publication of revised manuscript
Author Response
Authors highly appreciate the detailed and constructive comments from the reviewer and the academic editor. The comments from the academic editor have revised the manuscript accordingly, with all the comments being addressed. The revised text is highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
