All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have evaluated your responses to the reviewers. You have made all the necessary corrections and adjustments to your manuscript and I approve of its publication. Well done.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
In addition to responding to the reviewers' comments please make a careful read to correct errors in English. I noticed problems in tense throughout. Special note - the last sentence at the end of the document is muddled.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
No comment
no comment
no comment
This manuscript deals with seasonal variation of heavy metals using various assessment developed by other researchers as indicators to evaluate pollution status of river pollution, China. By analyzing and interpreting the metal concentrations in surface water samples, the manuscript presents metal distributions and conclusive pollution indices to show the current status of this region. Major revision of this manuscript is needed and some information needs to be added.
Abstract: looks like reporting the results based on various analysis and it doesn't give any significant findings through this research. It is even better to show some analytical values (ranges), which give some highlight to this study.
Introduction part doesn’t sufficient, concentrates on the methods used to identify this research and at the present state reads as a methodology. This also does not seem to be a thorough literature review and the provided methods that they have adopted in the study. If the authors could attempt to improve the introduction by an in-depth review of these methods, this study will serve as a valuable reference to the scientific community. Any type of metals contamination studies didn’t done this study area? Then how this study will make a difference from the previous works. Add some research cap to justify this current research.
The precision of the analytical process is not shown. Also, is this dataset adequate to describe the temporal changes of the water quality? In terms of sampling strategy, I would like to understand the reasoning behind stations location. Are these stations related to point and non-point pollution sources? A table with the location of each sampling station and possible impact on the water quality contamination will be helpful for the readers not familiar with the study area. Also locate of point sources in Fig.1 with different symbol.
Seasonal variation and statistical analysis of metals important so, author need to discuss in detail about this process and bring more evidences. Is there any lithogenic impact to the metals concentration? Is the rainfall on that particular season will contribute to the dissolution of minerals during weathering? How about the summer season? Another aspect is the lack of correlation between metals with the geology as well as contamination sources. Many of the sentences relating these metals need to justification or scientific discussion. PCA – explain accumulation of metals (3 groups) with different sampling stations.
Conclusion need to rewrite by showing salient observation through this research. Author need to add some statement on the quality management strategy plans based on this assessment.
I recommend from the authors to read and cite the following articles that will improve the manuscript drastically
Figures 7 station id not clear.
This manuscript presents interesting data on the heavy metals at 30 sampling points in major rivers in Wuhan. The authors interpret their heavy metals results by applying a couple of statistical techniques to better understand their data along with distribution, sources, water quality, and health risk assessment. Although the statistical analysis method is nothing new, the study presents the health risk directly and vividly via GIS technology. For the sensitive water quality protection, this study states important data not only at a local scale but all over the world and the amount of data about the new river system is worth publishing. However, there are some issues needed to be considered prior to publication.
In statistics analysis section, Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed. However, the correlation coefficients mentioned in Line 243 are different from it in the figure 4. Please do check and classify.
1 The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
2 When using acronym for the first time, complete spelling should be written first. It is mentioned in line137 that "… inserted into the surface rivers of Wuhan by IDW method to show the spatial distribution. …." IDW should be used complete spelling first.
3 Inverse distance weighted method is not detailed enough, should be appropriate reference to the relevant research literature.
4 The language and writing should be further improved across the whole manuscript.
1 The abstract should present the data summary of the study results, such as the content, HPI and HI values of heavy metals over the surface river.
2 In the introduction section, heavy metals need more illustration, which is in direct connection with the aim of the study. Moreover, the description of Wuhan should be merged with the study area section.
3 The paper deals with the heavy metals with little description of the pH, DO, EC, TN, and TP, ignoring the importance of these parameters for the distribution of heavy metals in the rivers. I recommend a more appropriate description of the physicochemical characteristics and its influence on heavy metals.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.