Dear Dr. Sumary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Below is a synthesis of the reviewers’ observations and recommendations, which I believe will enhance the manuscript’s clarity, methodological transparency, and impact on the field.

In summary, we recommend the following improvements:

Methodology: Elaborate on sampling specifics, quality control, and statistical methods.

Data Visualization: Use graphical aids to make data interpretation more intuitive.

Discussion Expansion: Provide a thorough exploration of health and environmental implications, drawing connections with prior research.

Language and Structure: Address grammatical and structural issues to meet journal standards, including reducing similarity and enhancing originality.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elena Marrocchino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:-->--> -->-->When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found athttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf-->--> -->-->2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.-->--> -->-->3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. -->--> -->-->When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.-->--> -->-->4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.-->--> -->-->Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).For example, authors should submit the following data:-->--> -->-->- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;-->-->- The values used to build graphs;-->-->- The points extracted from images for analysis.-->--> -->-->Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.-->--> -->-->If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.?>

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

The Reviewers and I have considered your manuscript "Assessment of Heavy Metals in Soil and Water from Bahi District, Tanzania" (PONE-D-24-37705).

Below is a synthesis of the reviewers’ observations and recommendations, which I believe will enhance the manuscript’s clarity, methodological transparency, and impact on the field.

In summary, we recommend the following improvements:

Methodology: Elaborate on sampling specifics, quality control, and statistical methods.

Data Visualization: Use graphical aids to make data interpretation more intuitive.

Discussion Expansion: Provide a thorough exploration of health and environmental implications, drawing connections with prior research.

Language and Structure: Address grammatical and structural issues to meet journal standards, including reducing similarity and enhancing originality.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript deals with "Assessment of heavy metals in soil and water from Bahi district, Tanzania" the following comments and suggestions are need to address before its consideration.

1. The methodology section should provide more detailed descriptions of the sampling process, including the specific locations and conditions under which samples were collected. This will help readers understand the context and reliability of the data

2. While the manuscript mentions the use of descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and PCA, it would be beneficial to elaborate on the rationale for choosing these specific statistical methods. Additionally, including a brief explanation of how these analyses contribute to understanding the relationships between heavy metals and metal oxides would strengthen the analysis section

3. More emphasis on the quality control measures taken during the study, such as the use of blank solutions and recovery studies, would add credibility to the results. This could be integrated into the methodology section. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-024-04234-0,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691524003727,

4. 1. What specific AAS techniques were utilized?, 2. How do findings compare to previous studies? 3. What quality control measures were implemented? Referred to below papers and cite them

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X24001019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X24000749, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157523008177

5. The results section could be improved by including visual aids such as graphs or tables that summarize the heavy metal concentrations in both soil and water samples. This would make the data more accessible and easier to interpret for readers

6. The discussion should delve deeper into the implications of the findings, particularly regarding the potential health risks associated with heavy metal concentrations. It would be useful to compare the results with similar studies in other regions to provide a broader context

7. The manuscript mentions the presence of radionuclides and heavy metals in the Bahi area. Expanding on how these factors interact with local agricultural practices and their potential impact on the community would provide valuable insights

8. Including a section that outlines potential future research directions based on the findings would be beneficial. This could involve suggestions for long-term monitoring of heavy metal concentrations or studies on the effectiveness of remediation strategies

9. Ensure that the manuscript adheres to PLOS ONE's formatting guidelines, including reference style and figure/table formatting. Additionally, proofreading for grammatical errors and clarity will enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The abstract is longer than the introduction, and the introduction lacks a story to support the research study's clear objective.

The introduction should include the specific problem of soil facing the issue of heavy metal pollution.

A detailed overview of the problem, the research gap, the objectives, and the significance of your study should be discussed in the introduction.

Introduce Bahi district characteristics.

The spelling of anthropogenic is wrong in the introduction like anthroponenic*.

Lines 92-104 are copied and need to be rewritten

Lines 389-392 are copied and need to be re-written

Captions of the tables and figures need to be appropriate

In methodology, XRF used for metals composition report complete

Geospatial information of water samples is not well-defined

Table 1. Maximum standard permissible heavy metal concentrations in soil or water should be soil and water

Figure Captions are not well placed, and figure resolution is not up to the mark

Maps missing the proper labelling of sampling points

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Sumary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Y.M. Hanfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  In my opinion, this new manuscript represents the authors' excellent work. The latest version of the manuscript has improved its quality.

Reviewer #2:  Manuscript lacks the strength in research hypothesis and objective. Research work is just based on very simple approach which do not reflect any potential outcome and reader preference as well as interest.

Reviewer #3:  Editor:

Please ensure the results are accurately reported, any overstated conclusions are rewritten and the limitations of the work fully explained.

Comments to the Authors

Dear Editor

PLOS ONE

Review report on manuscript #: PONE-D-24-37705R1

Title: “Assessment of heavy metals in soil and water from Bahi district, Tanzania”

The manuscript is significant, this study focuses on analyzing heavy metal concentrations in soil and water samples from Bahi district, Tanzania. The research utilized quantitative laboratory methods, specifically energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) spectrometry for soil samples and atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) for water samples. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were employed to assess variations in heavy metal concentrations and their associations with metal oxides.

The introduction presents the specific work's aim in a well-organized manner. The experimental results were tabulated and illustrated in a comprehensive manner. Both abstracts and conclusions are informative and suitably formed.

After the corrections below, it can be suitable for the publication in the Journal.

Comment 1: The abstract is rather lengthy. A portion of the abstract ought to be moved into the Materials and Methods and Introduction sections.

Comment 2: The figures resolution of the article is very low especially fig. 3 to fig. 10. I couldn't see what is written on these figures.

Comment 3: Language and Style: The writing is mostly clear, but there are areas where grammatical improvements could enhance readability. A thorough proofreading is recommended.

Comment 4: The conclusion is poor. It should be rewritten according to the significance of the present outcomes in the context. The authors should mention how to achieve the research question mentioned at the end of the introduction. Conclusions must be deeper.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Sherif A. Taalab

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Assessment of heavy metals in soil and water from Bahi district, Tanzania

PONE-D-24-37705R2

Dear Dr. Dominic Parmena Sumary,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Y.M. Hanfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: