Artificial Radionuclides in the System: Water, Irrigated Soils, and Agricultural Plants of the Crimea Region
(This article belongs to the Section Land, Soil and Water)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To Authors:
1.When you describe the radionuclide determination procedure it is necessary to indicate the amounts of water, soil, and agricultural samples that were used for the radionuclide measurements.
2.The formula that you used to determine the distribution ratios between water and bottom sediments can only be used for static studies. In reality, the radionuclide concentration in water is always constant due to flowing water. On the other hand, the radioactivity of bottom sediments suffers permanent changes due to radionuclide sorption. This formula can only determine the distribution ratio at a specific time point (moment), rather than a time period. Therefore, it is not quite clear what data you used to calculate the distribution ratios in Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 6.
33 In my opinion, the data on the distribution ratios should not appear in Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 6, as well as in the text and abstract.
4. other issues:
1. Lines 35, 44: correct 137Cs
2. Line 36: correct 90Sr
3. Line 150: correct 0,4 to 0.4
4. Line 193: add a space in «the subsequent»
5. Line 195: add a space in «with 50–100»
6. Line 199: add a space in «the energy»
7. Line 200: add a space in «plutonium 239Pu»
8. Line 201: add a space in «alpha-radionuclide 242Pu»
9. Line 204: add a space in «the 239,240Pu»
10. Line 205: add a space in «organisms, and»
11. Line 366: change “Chernoby”l to “Chernobyl”
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
In my opinion the theme of the article is very actual and interesting for the readers of the journal.
The study is very important to scientific community.
The paper is well structured, well written, the language is correct and clear, and the title and abstract clearly describe the content of the manuscript. However, in my opinion the authors should include in abstract the meaning of some acronyms.
In my opinion only, minor revision is needed. Congratulations!
Best regards
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the authors presented the data sets for old years instead of recent years. The authors should compare the data with different years even recent years. Based on the serious concern on the data that the authors presented, therefore I can recommend that this manuscript can be accepted for publication in current form. The critical comments are given as below.
1. In Abstract, “A radioecological forecast of the safety agriculture along the NCC was made: in the next 10 years (2022-2032) the content of 90Sr, 137Сs and 239+240Pu in cultivated crops will not exceed of the MPC, which are accepted for assessment quality and safe use of food raw materials.” It is not so real, because the data set shown in the manuscript is too old. How did the authors forecast concentration for next 10 years?
2. The importance of this study should be more highlighted.
3. Line 206, “(p. 248)” it can be erased.
4. The author should describe that how many year data were sampled and collected.
5. In Figure 2, 90Sr concentration in the Dnieper water in the NCC entry to the Crimean 227 Peninsula (Armyansk) in 1986–1988 and 2022 was shown. The concentration for each year can be displayed in figure.
6. Lines 231-238, the explanation of the concentration of 90Sr for each year or trend is needed.
7. Why did the authors present the dynamics of 90Sr concentration in the NCC water in 1992–1995 only? How about the other years?
8. The same problem is also shown in Table 1 for the year 1986-1995 and 1999 only.
9. Other tables and figures were presented with the historical data instead of new data sets.
10. The small problem is also found in “Conclusions”. “Based on the results of radioecological monitoring, a forecast was made that in the next 10 years (from 2022 to 2032) the content of 90Sr, 137Сs and 239+240Pu in cultivated crops (rice, corn, alfalfa, wheat) will not exceed of the MPC, which are accepted for assessment quality and safe use of food raw materials.” How to forecast? The authors should provide the scientific forecast approach.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments on “Artificial radionuclides in the system: water, irrigated soils, ag-2 ricultural plants of Crimea region (Manuscript ID: land-1871408)” submitted by Mirzoeva et al.
This manuscript presents datasets on long-term dynamics of artificial radionuclides in the environment and evaluates magnitude of secondary radiological contamination. Findings by this research are very important and worthwhile to be published.
However, minor revisions are required before its publication in terms of reader-friendliness.
My comments are as followings;
L21: MPC
It should be spelled out.
L44: 137Cs
Correct it for proper superscript.
L56: “North-Crimean Canal”
It should be “NCC”
L79 IBSS
It should be spelled out it as this is the first appearance in the text.
L113-L116, bottom sediments (sampling …… sampled on these stations.
What depths of soil and sediments were sampled? Indicate sampling depth.
Figure 1. Indicate locations of Kakhoskoe reservoirs. Geographical condition should be presented more such as geology, soil properties, (estimated) irrigated area, territory areas of each test site (km2, ha etc) and so on..
L151-L154
Describe measurement error or measurement time for data quality of 137Cs.
L165:Bq m3
Correct it. "Bq/kg" is not equal to "Bq/m3".
L197-L203
I do not find any data of Kd between the bottom sediment and water in the manuscript. In other literature, I find that most of Kd values are calculated by dividing radionuclide concentration in solid (Particulate form) by radionuclide concentration in liquid (dissolved form). Such Kd values are used as an index of affinity of radionuclide to the media (such as soil and sediment particles). However, I do not understand what’s the meaning of the Kd which the authors employ. Please elaborate what the Kd means or why the authors use the Kd.
Figure 2.
Figure 2 (a) is too small and hard to understand. Present it separately from Figure 2 (b) and add explanations. What do bars means? What do allows mean? What territory does the figure (a) cover? Please indicate, on Figure 1, where "the Kakhovskoe reservoir" is.
L239 North-Crimean Canal
It should be “NCC”
L246-L247: According to …,… to the test site No 2.
How were the quantities calculated?
Table 1
I do not understand how this table was made. Concentration of 90Sr was derived from mean values obtained by all stations? How large area was subject to the irrigation water?
Please make them clear by use of footnotes or additional description to the Method section.
Figure 7:
Remove the arrow.
L540: North-Crimean Canal
It should be NCC
L588: North-Crimean Canal
It should be NCC
L739 Chernobyl NPP
It should be ChNPP
It's all. I beg the authors' consideration.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend that the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.
