ATOM INDONESIA
Author's Responses
Article : #935
Article Title : Sediment Accumulation Rate in Sayung Coast, Demak, Central Java Using Unsupported 210Pb Isotope
Line # Referee’s Comments Author's Responses
1-3
A New Record of” in the title has no significant meaning. It is only to indicate that it is a new study, then it should be erased or paraphrased
We have erased the unnecessary part of the older title, and in the last version, we
changed the title of “Sediment Accumulation Rate in Sayung Coast, Demak, Central Java Using Unsupported 210Pb Isotope”
11-13
The two beginning sentences in the abstract are only background information and they are not part of authors research. Please start the abstract by a sentence that explaining or the result of your study.
The two beginning sentences in the abstract have been deleted. The abstract was arranged in accordance with the reviewer suggestions by which it focuses on the purpose of the study.
11-13
3rd sentence: “Some efforts have been measured……..” please explain what do you mean by the word “measured”.
The sentence has been rewritten clearly.
11-13
3rd sentence: “Some efforts have been measured to cope with these hazards……..”please elaborate the hazards.
Actually, we have elaborated the type of hazards combined with disaster issues in the study area.
11-13
5th sentence: “This study aimed to determine……….., sediment sources analysis,…”
I hardly see discussion about sediment sources analysis in this paper.
The aim of this study has been rewritten in accordance with the results and discussion within the manuscript.
11-13
6th sentence: “The supported 210Pb sediment accumulation rates…………” please paraphrase this sentence because it is not very clear either it refers to 210Pb accumulation rates or sediment accumulation rate.
This sentence has been repaired continuously by replacing with “sediment accumulation rates”
11-13
9th sentence: “This increased to around 0.4 cm/year in 2016 in………….” the subject of the sentence (“This”) is not very clear to what it refers to.
We have been rewritten this sentence so that it will be clearer what the author means
11-13
10th sentence: “Normalization of rivers ……….”
It this is not the results of your study (only suggestion) then don’t put it as a part of your abstract
This sentence has been deleted as the reviewer suggestion.
11-13 The last 2 sentences has no any significant
meaning, hence, can be omitted. The last two sentences have been omitted 25-26
Please change “area” to “land” and “reached” to
“has reached to” in “The total eroded area………reached 495.80 ha [4].”
We have changed the words in accordance with the reviewer suggestion.
27-29
Please be consistent to use plural or singular.
Please change “environment” to environments” in
“This erosion………. This issue has been corrected.
48-58 Please use appropriate “tenses” past or present
was instead of is. Past tense is perfect for this part.
55 “wide-spreading of” ->”wide spread” It’s supposed to be “wide spread”.
99
If all the 3 morphological units have been mentioned then the word “including” is not appropriate in this sentence.
The word “including” has been omitted for this part.
112 Use common conjunction word instead of “After that, …”
The conjunction “after that” has been changed with “moreover”
118 “unique geology” “unique geological
formation”??? It supposed to be “unique geological
formation”
127
“EXPERIMENTAL METHOD”
“METHODOLOGY” Subsection to how you determine the sediment accumulation rate (model, formula, steps) should be added in this section because it is the main discussion in this study.
It’s supposed to be “METHODOLOGY”
and we have rearranged the content of this section properly as the reviewer suggestion.
174 MSE RMSE So sorry for this little mistake, it should be
RMSE 180-
186
These sentences should be moved to “RESULTS and DISCUSSION”
This part has been moved to “RESULTS AND DISCUSSION”
193
“Flow Model Simulation” Why is this subsection to be elaborated here? What is the purpose of this flow model simulation, because this flow model simulation is not discussed in the “RESULTS AND DISCUSSION”. If it is discussed in
“RESULTS AND DISCUSSION” then please mentioned it. If Figure 4 is the output of this simulation model then you should mentioned it explicitly.
This subsection is appropriate to be elaborated in the “METHODOLOGY”
because it explains how we simulate the hydrodynamic model, the model set-up, etc.
The result was also discussed in the
“RESULTS AND DISCUSSION” in the subsection of “Hydro-Oceanographic conditions”. Then we changed the Figure 4 title and mentioned the “flow model simulation” explicitly
203- 205
“To develop hydrodynamic model, ……..” does it mean that you develop hydrodynamic model?
Yes, we developed hydrodynamic model by simulating flow model approach
215
…………the model developed. ………the developed model. Which one do you mean the developed model? Did you develop any model by your self in this current study?
It supposed to be “the developed model”
because we only simulated one model that is flow model to depict the hydrodynamic patterns of the study area.
225- 227
Be careful to use the term “accelerates” the unit of acceleration is m/s2 not m/s. You may consider this instead: “During high tide, the surface current can reach up to 0.41 m/s………”
We apologize for this misunderstanding. We have deleted the word “accelerates”.
269- 273
Figure 4: Keep the title of the figure as simple as possible Background information (findings) can be discussed in text of the manuscript.
We have edited it properly as the reviewer suggestion.
278
……….Bq.kg-1 respectively.
…………Bq.kg-1, respectively. Always put comma before “respectively” (check other sentences).
This suggestion has been applied for the whole manuscript.
277 Bq.kg-1??? Bq/kg It has been changed
281- 283
“The unsupported …….the unstable
……….those two analysis period.” Please be clear about the meaning of the unstable value and two analysis period?
This part has been deleted because it is not necessary for explaining the 210Pb analysis results.
286 Please refers to previous comment to find correct
word for “including”. This issue has been repaired 285- Please explain what LS1, LS2, etc and mixing
layer means. To help the readers, please give
The explanation of LS1, LS2, etc and mixing layer has been mentioned in the subsection
an example to how you divide the layers based on the data. Please rewrite cm.y-1 to cm/y
“Sediment Sampling and Isotopes 210Pb Analysis”. The example is also explained in that part. While the unit used has been rewritten cm/y.
301- 302
CIC model please elaborate this model in
“METHODOLOGY”. There is no Table 2. We have fixed this issue
348
Figure 6. Again, to help the readers to understand the study, please elaborate how do you
convert 210P radio activity to years (give an example case from your data”.
The convertion of 210Pb radio actvity to years was also elaborated in the subsection
“Sediment Sampling and Isotopes 210Pb Analysis”. The example from our data was also explained properly.
351
What do you mean by “The acceleration of sedimentation rates”? Why don’t you use simply
“sedimentation rate” instead?
It has been rewritten 386-
388
Please recheck this sentence either it has grammatically correct or not
This part has been rewritten and rearranged properly
389 Please use consistent terminology sedimentation
or sedimentation rate We have fixed this issue
434- 436
“Based on ………..observation stations.”
Please correct this sentence.
We have rearranged the sentence so that it can be easily understood by the reader 436-
439
Is it widely accepted the terminology “the sediment accumulation decreased” is called erosion? Please give reference here.
That is not the correct terminology, the decrease in accumulation of sediment does not guarantee that erosion occurs
453- 474
“CONCLUSION”
- The conclusion so short compared to very long discussion in “RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION”.
- Some values are not matched between those in
“RESULTS AND DISCUSSION” to
those in CONCLUSION i.e., in line 329 – 330 the sedimentation rates for Timbulsloko was written 0.15 and 0.14 cm/y but in the CONCLUSION was written 0.06 cm/y.
We apologize for this mistake. We have rearranged the “CONCLUSION” according to the purpose of this study. The significant discussion has been mentioned in this part.
Please return to Atom Indonesia Editorial Office via supplementary file in OJS aplication.
June 16 2019
