PONE-D-22-06684

Irrigation suitability and heavy metal screening of surface water near marble industry with allied human health risks in District Malakand, Pakistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. khan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Based on the adverse comments received from the reviewers I decided to reject the submission at this stage.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript surveyed the elemental composition in surface water for irrigation in the marble plant nearby. The study approach, findings, and discussion is local and not novel. Additionally, this reviewer can not agree with the concept of HI calculation and the involved element and the exposed way consideration. How is the suspended solid impact for human health by inhalation? The data findings were not new and local, it is hard to get new knowledge for readers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes: Zeng-Yei Hseu

**********

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

PONE-D-22-06684R1Irrigation suitability, health risk assessment and source apportionment of heavy metals in surface water used for irrigation near marble industry in Malakand, PakistanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. khan,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

• Indicate which changes you require for acceptance versus which changes you recommend
• Address any conflicts between the reviews so that it's clear which advice the authors should follow
• Provide specific feedback from your evaluation of the manuscript

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2022 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,

Pramod K Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author:

Thank you for resubmitting this manuscript. After looking all the comments from multiple reviewers, and mixed responses, your manuscript was revaluated by new reviewers. Now we have outcomes, and a major revision has been requested. As an academic editor, I suggest authors to revisit manuscript, carefully look critical feedbacks, and provide line by line response to comments. Also, writing requires improvement in terms of language. Now this is an opportunity for authors to rework in manuscript, and resubmit a revision (improved version) of the manuscript for further review.

Thank you for considering PLOS ONE.

Regards

Academic Editor

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Alternative irrigation water sources are needed due to the decrease in available clean water resources. One of the best alternatives among these is the use of marginal waters such as wastewater. For this purpose, studies should be supported. In addition, field studies are important in terms of both time and effort. In the study, sampling, analysis and writing stages are sufficient.

Reviewer #3: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-06684R1

Manuscript Full Title: Irrigation suitability, health risk assessment and source apportionment of heavy metals in surface water used for irrigation near marble industry in Malakand, Pakistan

General comments

1. In this study, authors evaluated heavy metals (HM) levels in surface water nearby a marble industry for irrigation suitability purposes together with associated health risks in Malakand, Pakistan. Using GIS, authors collected 27 samples of surface water used for irrigation of crops and analyzed for heavy metals (Al, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Si, Sr, Ti, and Zn) through inductively coupled plasma optical emission. Using heavy metal contents, authors calculated health risks through ingestion and dermal pathway. Results of the Kelly’s ratio (KR) classified the surface water as unsuitable for irrigation. The average daily absorbed dose (ADD), total hazard quotient (THQ > 1) and hazard index (HI > 1) revealed considerable risk of noncarcinogenic toxicity for aduslts and children for certain heavy metals through the ingestion and dermal exposure routes. Especially, cancer risk factor values for Cr and Ni were also higher than the USEPA threshold revealing potential carcinogenic risk. Authors also performed multivariate analysis [CoDa PCA, PCA biplot (clr)]. Authors proposed regular monitoring and remediation strategies of studied waters before being used for irrigation.

2. Overall, manuscript contains useful data and can be a good contribution to scientific literature. Study plan is sound accompanied with the use of latest statistical analyses techniques such as PCA, which have made this study impressive. However, I recommend major revisions of manuscript based on following comments.

3. Manuscript needs language improvement. There are several sentences which contain either grammatical error or are not easy to follow/understand. For detail, please see specific comments.

Specific comments

4. Abstract needs revision. Currently, abstract is very general without any quantitative data. Methodological detail is missing in abstract. Authors may include number of samples collected in abstract. Authors may also present here the % of samples having heavy metal levels above limit values.

5. Introduction sections well-explains the study background and objectives. However, it needs language improvement. Moreover, authors may include some more data here about industrial water treatment and wastewater irrigation concept of the country. For reference, author may consult following review article about wastewater production, composition and use for irrigation in the country.

6. A critical analysis of wastewater use in agriculture and associated health risks in Pakistan. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00702-3

7. A review of environmental contamination and health risk assessment of wastewater use for crop irrigation with a focus on low and high income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15(5), 895

8. Reference citation is vague and needs careful attention. Authors must follow journal style and format for citations. Currently, authors have cited article by numbers and name of authors. For example:

• Line 155: The people of the study area are primarily connected with agricultural sector that grows various cereal crops and vegetables (Wahid et al., 2017).

• Line 229: (Aitchison, 1982; Egozcue et al., 2003; Egozcue and Pawlowsky-Glahn, 2005).

• Line 153: According to (44)

9. Moreover, authors have cited a total of 142 references in this which are too many for a research article. Please cite only necessary reverences and limit the reference count to < 40.

10. Methodology is well-described. Study area is well-explained and all the risk indices are well-presented with proper references. However, Statistical analysis is too long and contains unnecessary detail and too many references.

11. What is the justification/reason of selecting the following heavy metals (metals (Al, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Si, Sr, Ti, and Zn) for analysis in this study? Why ot some other important heavy metal(loid)s such as As, Cd, Pb etc.

12. Results and discussion section seems ok. It would be better to concise this section if possible. The introductory sentences in each section, which are basically repetitions, may be deleted. For example, Line 461-462: “Assessment of human health risk is an approach widely used to compute the nature and probability of hostile health effects in humans (124).”.

13. Conclusion seems like abstract. Here, authors must present their concluding results and recommendations rather than just repeating abstract.

14. Authors have used several abbreviations in the manuscript. However, the use of abbreviations is not as per rule. Generally, an abbreviation must be used at the first appearance of full name in the text and then the abbreviation must be used throughout the manuscript. Here authors have used both randomly.

15. Following are some examples of sentences needing grammatical revision or are not easy to understand/follow. Entire manuscript needs grammatical revision.

• Line 22-23: Health risks from HM exposure were calculated through ingestion and dermal pathway by application …..

• Line 32-34: Estimated Incremental lifetime cancer risk values for Cr and Ni were also higher than the USEPA threshold of 1 x 10−6 - 1 x 10−4 revealed potential carcinogenic risk.

• Line : The current study results revealed both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health risks to the exposure population.

• Line 37-38: Therefore, regular monitoring and remediation strategies is ….

• Line 55: Industrialization and urbanization process is beneficial….

• Line 55-58: Too long sentence to follow. Please use small and easily understandable sentences: “Industrialization and urbanization process is beneficial, particularly in the aspect of shaping demographic characteristics, however the rapid, unplanned, random and uncontrolled conversion of the tangible landscape may result undesirable change on water and land ecosystem in terms of deterioration and scarcity of fresh water, posing an extensive threat to global food security (1–3).”

• Line 83-84: Globally the issue of heavy metal (HM) pollution of fresh water resources getting more attention due to the toxic, persistence and bioaccumulative nature (19)

• Line 153: According to (44) the supplementary contributor of pollutant load to the irrigation channels in study area were surface runoff, urban wastewater, and atmospheric deposition of heavy metals.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Irrigation suitability, health risk assessment, and source apportionment of heavy metals in surface water used for irrigation near marble industry in Malakand, Pakistan

PONE-D-22-06684R2

Dear Dr. khan,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Pramod K Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Few corrections needed before publishing:

1. Authors should improve written English, or should take the help from, who has experience in scientific writing for improving English.

2. Abbreviation should be written in parenthesis instead they should follow the pattern which is common, and previously published in PlosOne.

3. Conclusion should be written as conclusions.

Above are few examples. Authors are suggested to spend substantial time on improving the English of manuscript, and follow the writing of PlosOne.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The required corrections in the study were answered adequately. Publication of the study is appropriate.

Reviewer #4: Authors have appropriately addressed the reviewers comments. The layout of the manuscript is good and the presentation of the data is systematic. It can be consider for the publicaiton.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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 #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********