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.
Thank you for addressing all coments from the two anonymous reviewers. We did not received further comments to your manuscript. We agree with the response and the modifications to the manuscript. It can be accepted for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Based on the anonymous reviews, your manuscript required major revision before it can be accepted. Please try to submit the revised manuscript and reply within three weeks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors evaluated the ionic composition, sources, and health risks of F and nitrate ions in the river waters of the Qingshuijiang River Basin, which is of practical importance. However, several issues must be addressed.
1) There was a discrepancy between the title and content of the article. The title clearly states that the change is over a 10-year period, but the content of the article is only the data from to 2013-2014 and 2023, which does not reflect the 10-year trend but only shows the difference between the current situation and the situation 10 years ago. However, the comparative content of the article regarding the difference is small and cannot reflect the value of the data.
2) In the preface, the authors devoted much space to the practical value of the study but did not reflect the scientific value of the research in this paper. The authors should have clearly stated the scientific problems to be addressed in this study.
3) The sampling section is overly simplistic, and the sampling details are critical for the analysis of the ionic composition. Analyzing the data requires charge balance error analysis of the ionic components.
4) The authors' human health risk is based on the premise that people drink surface water directly; however, what is the source of water for people in the area? If treated with drinking water, what is the significance of the author's health risk evaluation?
5) In the Discussion section, the authors need to be clear about principal component analysis and factor analysis, which are different methods of analysis.
6) In addition, the authors mentioned that " After deducting Na+ and K+ from atmospheric precipitation sources of silicate rock weathering rivers, the remaining Na+, K+ and Cl2 were from anthropogenic sources." The authors must provide a detailed description of the methodology used for the deductions.
7) The authors need to identify the source of SO4. In the principal component analysis, the authors believe that it has the same source as Ca, but in the discussion, the authors believe that SO4 mainly comes from industrial activities.
8) Overall, this study analyzes the ionic composition data in detail based on traditional methods, which has some practical value, but some additions need to be made to the scientific value of the research process of the paper.
good
good
good
I have reviewed the manuscript. The authors used principal component analysis (PCA), ion ratio and other methods to study the water chemistry of Qingshuijiang River Basin in the past ten years. And the authors thought it is still necessary to pay attention to the irrigation safety and F exceeding risk of a few tributaries in the basin, and long-term monitoring of the river basin is still essential. I suggest the authors should address the below comments.
1. Line 19, why "daily"?
2. The English should be polished by a fluent English speaker.
3. This study should compare with other's study in the karst area.
4. The format of the writing should be uniform， e.g. line 133
5. The short term should be explained by the first time. e.g. HQ in Line 144, and hazard quotient (HQ) in 153line
6. What is the significant digit after the decimal point, and it shows the precise of measurement .e.g. Line 173
7. What is "、" in English?
8. sufluric acid-driven weathering in Karst area should include relevant references
9. Did aquatic photosysthesis affect DIC and major ions?
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.