The research paper presents a valuable contribution to the study of radionuclide distribution
and radiological risk assessment. The methodology is well-structured, and the statistical
analyses provide meaningful insights into the relationship between radionuclide activity and
radiological indices. The findings align with existing literature. However, certain aspects
require improvement to enhance the clarity of the study. Specifically:
Title: I suggest this title: Assessment of environmental radiological risk in agricultural soils
near to mining regions in Ilesa and Sagamu (Nigeria)
Abstract:
Line 12: Assessment of activity levels of radionuclide (40K, 226Ra, and 232Th)
Same line: in soils collected from instead of acquired
Line 17: The number "40" should be written in full as "forty." It should be done throughout
the manuscript.
Line 26: add coma before respectively
Line 29: Please correct: The mean 232Th activity levels in the research areas were
substantially higher than the global average levels in soils reported by the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 2008).
Line 41: Since you have already presented the radiological risk indices with their
abbreviations above, you should use the abbreviated names throughout the manuscript instead
of writing them out in full each time.
Introduction:
The introduction is too long and should be shortened.
Line 14: Do not include references for general statements
Page 4 line 17: add reference
Page 4 line 24: Please correct: Several studies have demonstrated the impact of mining on
environmental radionuclide contamination and its potential radiological risks.
Page 4 line 36: Very poorly expressed
Page 4 line 43: No need to specify NORM again as you did earlier.
Page 4 line 46: Combine this section where you present the work of other researchers with
the one starting from line 29, rephrase and summarize
Page 5 line 19: Replace life with lifetime.
Page 5 line 21: Please correct: Therefore, assessment of the enhancement of natural
radiological background in mining sites is of great scientific concern
Page 5 line 24: Please delete this sentence “This research is aimed at assessing the distribution
and probable radiological risk associated with soil radionuclides in two regions (Ilesa and
Sagamu) of southwestern, Nigeria.”
Page 5 line 31: Precise the study area
Page 5 line 34: Please delete:” determine the cancer risk probability in the different locations
within the study area”
Materials and methods
Page 6 line 24: I suggest modifying the title of the section to 'Soil Sampling, Pretreatment,
and Analysis'
The description of the soil sampling process is unclear. The statement mentions a total of 260
soil samples, but also refers to 40 composite samples, each consisting of 13 subsamples. This
would imply a total of 520 individual samples (40 × 13 = 520). I recommend revising the text
to clearly explain the relationship between the total number of individual soil samples,
composite samples, and subsamples. It would be helpful to clarify whether the 260 samples
refer to individual soil samples or composite samples, and how the 13 subsamples are
incorporated into each composite.
Page 6 line 36: unnecessary statement “These soil samples were brought to the lab to undergo
further processing before being subjected to gamma spectrometric examination”
Page 6 line 41: Please correct: In the laboratory, the radioactivity of each sample was
measured for 10 hours using a NaI(Tl) gamma-ray spectrometer, which was shielded with 15
cm of lead on all sides, including the top, to minimize background radiation from the
environment.
Page 6 line 61: Please remove the section detailing the calculation of activity, as it is generally
understood and does not need to be specified in the research work.
Page 9 line 19: Please include Equation 1 for the Raeq formula.
Page 9 line 36: T: exposure time
Page 9 Line 41 : Please delete the reference to UNSCEAR 2000, as you have already started
the sentence by citing UNSCEAR 2000
Same line : Please correct: the ICPR set a value of…
Page 9 line 51: Please correct: The non-parametric Spearman rank correlation method was
used to analyze the relationship between radionuclide activity concentration and radiological
indices.
Line 56: Shift this sentence to the Sampling and Analysis section.
Results and discussion
In the Results section, please ensure consistency in the verb tense. Sometimes the past tense is
used, and other times the present tense is used. I suggest using the present tense throughout.
Also, the Discussion section is quite brief. It should be improved by explaining the probable
reasons for extreme values and comparing your results with other studies conducted in the
same country or elsewhere. Additionally, you have commented on the activity concentrations
of the two regions separately, which is redundant. Try to rephrase this section and compare
the results obtained from both regions together to avoid repeating the interpretation, which
can be tedious for the reader.
Page 10 line 6: Please adopt the following format consistently throughout the manuscript: 'In
Ilesa, the activity levels of 40K in soil samples ranged from 2.74 to 265.07 Bq kg ⁻¹, with a
mean of 122.42 Bq kg⁻¹
Line 16-17: unnecessary statement. Please delete
Line 21: as reported by UNSCEAR…
Line 24 When compared to this global average value…
Line 26: It is necessary to specify the code or abbreviations used for the names of the soil
samples
Line 34: it is an average value
Line 36: UNSCEAR (2000) Delete “in “
Line 39: “These higher readings evidently show that heavy minerals are widely distributed in
the studied region” instead you need to discuss the reason of extreme values
Also please correct: In general, the mean activity concentration across this sample location
follows the order….
Line 43: Many studies discuss the relationship between these two radionuclides; you can
improve the discussion.
Univariate statistical analysis
Page 11 line 29: Statistical analysis (standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, variance etc...)
for radionuclide activity concentrations are also presented in Table 1
Please correct: A high level of uniformity is indicated by a standard deviation that is smaller
than the mean value, and vice versa. The standard deviation measures the dispersion of the
data from the mean.
Line 38: delete this sentence: “The level of asymmetry present in a probability distribution is
known as skewness is also presented in Table 1”
Line 41: Please correct: Positive skewness in 40K, 226Ra, and 232Th indicates that their
distributions are skewed to the right, meaning they are uneven. Meanwhile, the measurement
of peakedness, known as kurtosis, revealed positive values for the activity levels of 226Ra in
the current study, indicating leptokurtic behavior. In contrast, negative kurtosis values for the
activity concentrations of 40K and 232Th suggest platykurtic behavior.
BDL: Why was there no information provided regarding the analysis with the detector,
calibration, and correction (if necessary), as well as the detection limits and other relevant
details?
Page 16: the comparison section: It would be better to include a table for clearer presentation.
In the text, you can comment using the following format: 'The activity concentration reported
in (study reference) for (country) was higher/lower in the range...
Page 17 line 16: Please delete this statement “The average effective dosage received by
residents of these regions is higher than that of Europeans reported by Kovler (2017), and the
global norm presented by UNSCEAR (1988)”
Line 19: Shift to the introduction or delete “The gonads, active bone marrow, and bone
surface cells are considered to be the most important organs in the human body and are
susceptible to radiation infection (Darwish et al. 2015).”
Line 24: for the ELCR section start a new paragraph
Line 26: You need to discuss why you obtained high values in these soils specifically
Line 31: were lesser than: Grammar check
Please correct the title of Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Radiological Index Parameters in
Selected Soil Samples from Various Regions of Southwest Nigeria
Correlation analysis: I believe that this correlation study is unnecessary. The equations used
for calculating the risk parameters already demonstrate the nature of this correlation, and the
results are expected. Therefore, it does not add significant value to the study and could be
omitted or further justified if its inclusion is essential
Conclusion
Line 43 the result showed; 40K is lower than…
Line 48: the average D value for outdoors …., and ELCR…
The last sentence is quite poor and general. A stronger and more specific conclusion should
be provided for this research study, summarizing the key findings and their implications. It
would be helpful to highlight the significance of the results in the context of previous studies
and suggest potential directions for future research or practical applications.
