The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India

The distribution of groundwater uranium in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321" }, "headline": "The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India", "datePublished": "2025-03-24T16:53:58", "dateModified": "2025-08-21T15:48:39", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sadashiva Rampur" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mahesh Kumar V. K." }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Pavan R. Pelli" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Senjuti Sarkar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Samayeta Pramanik" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Upama Majumder" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shravanthi S." }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Bhavana Meenakshi T." }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rushi Pendem" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tanushree Ghosh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Deepesh Nagarajan" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India was found to possess high aquifer uranium concentrations. Geologically, Chintamani village is located on bedrock that is rich in elements like potassium (K) that naturally contain high levels of radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium, due to the presence of alkali-feldspar granites and gneisses. Aquifer depletion has caused the concentration of these elements in groundwater to increase over time, posing a potential health hazard to the residents of Chintamani village. Methods Here, we report the sampling of groundwater from 12 borewells located in Chintamani village in between the period of August 2024 to December 2024. We observed groundwater uranium concentrations of 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm. Data for borewell depth, the quantity of total dissolved solids (TDS), and the elemental composition of TDS is also reported. We observed a statistically significant spatial distribution of uranium concentrations in Chintamani village. Borewells possessing the highest observed concentrations of uranium were clustered towards the northwestern region of the village. Conclusions This dataset is expected to serve as a resource for guiding potential remediation efforts in these locations. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3", "name": "The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka,..." } } ] } Home Browse The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka,... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Rampur S, V. K. MK, Pelli PR et al. The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Data Note Revised The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Sadashiva Rampur https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1064-8064 1 , Mahesh Kumar V. K. 1 , Pavan R. Pelli 1 , [...] Senjuti Sarkar 1 , Samayeta Pramanik 1 , Upama Majumder 1 , Shravanthi S. 1 , Bhavana Meenakshi T. 1 , Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan 1 , Rushi Pendem 1 , Tanushree Ghosh 1 , Deepesh Nagarajan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8468-9834 1 Sadashiva Rampur https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1064-8064 1 , Mahesh Kumar V. K. 1 , [...] Pavan R. Pelli 1 , Senjuti Sarkar 1 , Samayeta Pramanik 1 , Upama Majumder 1 , Shravanthi S. 1 , Bhavana Meenakshi T. 1 , Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan 1 , Rushi Pendem 1 , Tanushree Ghosh 1 , Deepesh Nagarajan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8468-9834 1 PUBLISHED 21 Aug 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Life and Allied Health Sciences, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India Sadashiva Rampur Roles: Investigation Mahesh Kumar V. K. Roles: Investigation Pavan R. Pelli Roles: Investigation Senjuti Sarkar Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology Samayeta Pramanik Roles: Investigation Upama Majumder Roles: Investigation Shravanthi S. Roles: Investigation Bhavana Meenakshi T. Roles: Investigation Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan Roles: Formal Analysis Rushi Pendem Roles: Formal Analysis Tanushree Ghosh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision Deepesh Nagarajan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Public Health and Environmental Health collection. Abstract Background Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India was found to possess high aquifer uranium concentrations. Geologically, Chintamani village is located on bedrock that is rich in elements like potassium (K) that naturally contain high levels of radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium, due to the presence of alkali-feldspar granites and gneisses. Aquifer depletion has caused the concentration of these elements in groundwater to increase over time, posing a potential health hazard to the residents of Chintamani village. Methods Here, we report the sampling of groundwater from 12 borewells located in Chintamani village in between the period of August 2024 to December 2024. We observed groundwater uranium concentrations of 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm. Data for borewell depth, the quantity of total dissolved solids (TDS), and the elemental composition of TDS is also reported. We observed a statistically significant spatial distribution of uranium concentrations in Chintamani village. Borewells possessing the highest observed concentrations of uranium were clustered towards the northwestern region of the village. Conclusions This dataset is expected to serve as a resource for guiding potential remediation efforts in these locations. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Uranium, heavy metals, hydrogeology, aquifer contamination Corresponding Author(s) Deepesh Nagarajan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Deepesh Nagarajan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Rampur S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Rampur S, V. K. MK, Pelli PR et al. The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.3 ) First published: 24 Mar 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.1 ) Latest published: 21 Aug 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 This version addresses comments made by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Reviewer 2 requested a spatial map of uranium concentrations. This has been done and presented in Figure 1B. We used local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. We have also discussed the implications of our findings and the need for further work in order to address the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium concentrations. As per the request of Reviewer 3, we have included a rationale for including elemental analysis in our study. We have also briefly discussed the correlation between uranium and nitrogen concentrations. We found no correlation between these variables, indicating that nitrate fertilizers may not play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in this location. This version addresses comments made by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Reviewer 2 requested a spatial map of uranium concentrations. This has been done and presented in Figure 1B. We used local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. We have also discussed the implications of our findings and the need for further work in order to address the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium concentrations. As per the request of Reviewer 3, we have included a rationale for including elemental analysis in our study. We have also briefly discussed the correlation between uranium and nitrogen concentrations. We found no correlation between these variables, indicating that nitrate fertilizers may not play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in this location. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Daniel O. Omokpariola See the authors' detailed response to the review by Wasiu Mathew Owonikoko See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nilanjal Misra READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Uranium in groundwater primarily originates from natural geological sources, particularly from uranium-rich bedrock. Uranium may occur at high concentrations in intrusive igneous rocks, including two-mica granite, calc-alkaline granites, and alkalic plutonic rocks at concentrations of 3–300 ppm. 1 The crystal structures of igneous minerals like biotite, muscovite, K/Na-feldspar, and quartz may incorporate uranium in the percent range. 2 , 3 Uranium is also found in sedimentary rocks such as shales (2-4 ppm), bauxite (11.4 ppm) and lignite ( < 50-80 ppm). 1 Deep, water-stressed aquifers are frequently in contact with uranium-rich bedrock, enabling uranium to leach out into the surrounding groundwater. While this is a geogenic process, human activities can further exacerbate uranium contamination in groundwater. The use of nitrate-based fertilizers enhances the mobility of uranium by making it more soluble in water. 4 Additionally, over-extraction of groundwater lowers the water table, requiring deeper borewells to be drilled into uranium-rich bedrock. Diverse regions across the world experiencing water stress also display higher groundwater uranium content. Uranium concentrations in San Joaquin Valley, California, were observed to exceed federal and state drinking water standards of ≤30 ppb. 5 Groundwater in the Datong Basin, China, displayed uranium concentrations of < 0.02–288 ppb, with a mean of 24 ppb. 6 Likewise, high groundwater uranium concentrations have been reported in southern Finland, Germany, Portugal, 7 Japan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan and, India. 8 Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. 9 Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants 10 and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. 11 Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, 12 minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity, 13 , 14 with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. 15 Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. 15 Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, 16 reproductive and developmental toxicity. 17 In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We report the uranyl concentrations (ICP-MS), and TDS elemental compositions (SEM-EDS) of groundwater obtained from all the wells sampled. A previous survey conducted by R. Srinivasan et al. fluorimetrically measured concentrations of groundwater uranium from 73 borewells spread across 13 districts of Eastern Karnataka, 18 reporting high uranium concentrations of > 1 ppm in Chitradurga, Tumkur, Kolar, and Chikkaballapura districts of southeastern Karnataka. The bedrock in these districts is composed primarily of Neoarchean granites, gneisses, and migmatites. 18 The borewells we sampled displayed uranium concentrations ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm, confirming the concentration ranges reported in the previous survey. Furthermore, most wells sampled possessed groundwater uranium concentrations exceeding the permissible limits established by WHO (30 ppb) and AERB (60 ppb) supported by ICP-MS data. 19 We have mapped the spatial distribution of groundwater within Chintamani village. We observed a significantly higher concentration of uranium was observed in borewells clustered at the northeastern region of Chintamani village, meriting further investigation of the village’s local geological features. Methods Sample collection Groundwater samples from Chintamani village were collected using the purge and sample method. Each borewell was pumped for five minutes to remove stagnant water from the well casing and tubing. After purging, a 2 L water sample was collected in a clean polypropylene bottle. Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. Table 1. Uranium concentrations (in ppm) for groundwater collected from Chintamani village. Concentrations ≥ 0.03 ppm are underlined. Concentrations ≥ 0.06 ppm are in bold. Borewell name Collection date Latitude Longitude U (ppm) Borewell depth (feet) TDS (mg / L) Borewell 1 28Aug2024 13.407162 78.042081 0.771 1250 789.60 Borewell 2 28Aug2024 13.391223 78.054693 0.018 1550 192.30 Borewell 3 28Aug2024 13.380344 78.033369 0.02 1600 183.40 Borewell 4 28Aug2024 13.393505 78.071632 0.143 350 1009.60 Borewell 5 28Aug2024 13.376384 78.07072 0.035 No data 548.00 Borewell 6 30Nov2024 13.409183 78.04178 0.595 No data 2099.50 Borewell 7 21Dec2024 13.4075572 78.0395479 4.15 1200 542.70 Borewell 8 21Dec2024 13.4082796 78.038472 8.64 2000 706.20 Borewell 9 21Dec2024 13.4093118 78.0357153 0.12 200 686.40 Borewell 10 21Dec2024 13.4088807 78.0417362 0.74 1500 844.50 Borewell 11 21Dec2024 13.4118821 78.0413087 1.27 150 638.50 Borewell 12 21Dec2024 13.4117252 78.0423317 0.21 200 891.10 Mean 1.39 1000.00 760.98 SD 2.55 702.38 490.99 Corr. coeff. 0.49 -0.05 P-value 0.15 0.88 Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80°C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. This residue was weighed using a Shimadzu AXT224R precision balance (least count = 0.1 mg) and subjected to SEM-EDS in order to determine its elemental composition. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) ICP-MS experiments to quantify uranium concentration in the parts per million (ppm) range was performed by Eurofins Scientific India using a PerkinElmer ® 350X instrument . A 20-40 mL sample from each borewell was submitted. The sample was acidified with nitric acid to adjust the pH to ≤2. The instrument was set to detect elemental uranium concentrations. Raw data were interpreted using the Syngistix™ software (version 4.0, PerkinElmer ® ). Raw data may also be interpreted using openMS . ICP-MS reports for each sample can be found in Supplementary Dataset S1. 20 Scanning electron microscopy - energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) An FEI (Field Electron and Ion Company) Quanta 200 scanning electron microscope at Icon Labs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai was used to perform SEM-EDS experiments. Samples were observed under a low vacuum mode at 20 kV, and with a chamber pressure of 65 Pascal. SEM-EDS has a least count of 0.1% (by weight) and cannot detect elements below this concentration. SEM-EDS spectra and reports quantifying the elemental composition of each sample can be found in Supplementary Dataset S2. 21 Data representation and statistical analyses All statistical analyses were performed using the R programming language (version 4.4.2) . The Leaflet package 22 was used to generate a physical map of Chintamani village ( Figure 1 ). The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village ( Figure 1 ). This was performed using the function t.test. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and the statistical significance (p-value) between uranyl concentrations and the other variables discussed was calculated using the function cor.test ( Tables 1 , 2 ). Figure 1. [A] Groundwater uranium distribution in Chintamani village (red boundary). [B] Local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations (in ppm, contours). Table 2. Elemental composition of TDS obtained after drying groundwater samples collected from Chintamani village. Borewell name Data type C N O S Na Mg Si Cl K Ca Al Rh Borewell 1 Mean (mg/L) 162.10 40.43 361.08 8.29 34.35 35.37 11.29 64.04 1.97 68.93 0.00 0.00 (0.771 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 15.41 4.59 23.80 5.88 16.09 3.16 2.90 15.18 0.53 9.70 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 20.53 5.12 45.73 1.05 4.35 4.48 1.43 8.11 0.25 8.73 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 1.95 0.58 3.01 0.74 2.04 0.40 0.37 1.92 0.07 1.23 0.00 0.00 Borewell 2 Mean (mg/L) 21.29 14.07 98.55 1.73 18.27 9.23 7.53 8.71 0.52 12.45 0.00 0.00 (0.018 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 3.21 4.63 10.94 0.49 8.33 1.56 1.59 8.71 0.19 3.96 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 11.07 7.32 51.25 0.90 9.50 4.80 3.92 4.53 0.27 6.47 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 1.67 2.41 5.69 0.26 4.33 0.81 0.82 4.53 0.10 2.06 0.00 0.00 Borewell 3 Mean (mg/L) 68.70 3.01 80.65 0.55 17.39 0.93 3.73 2.31 0.14 5.79 0.00 0.00 (0.02 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 8.88 1.10 5.70 0.22 4.94 0.42 2.04 1.23 0.08 4.68 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 37.46 1.64 43.98 0.30 9.48 0.51 2.03 1.26 0.08 3.16 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 4.84 0.60 3.11 0.12 2.70 0.23 1.11 0.67 0.05 2.55 0.00 0.00 Borewell 4 Mean (mg/L) 188.21 28.61 419.15 8.58 63.44 45.35 13.63 157.83 1.51 82.96 0.25 0.00 (0.143 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 41.52 5.70 53.89 2.94 34.20 8.07 2.94 39.23 0.91 31.75 0.87 0.00 Mean (%) 18.64 2.83 41.52 0.85 6.28 4.49 1.35 15.63 0.15 8.22 0.03 0.00 SD (%) 4.11 0.56 5.34 0.29 3.39 0.80 0.29 3.89 0.09 3.14 0.09 0.00 Borewell 5 Mean (mg/L) 75.72 55.75 268.32 4.58 29.29 21.87 11.51 36.12 3.44 41.10 0.00 0.00 (0.035 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 33.53 4.78 31.94 8.20 21.23 4.24 3.47 21.90 0.85 14.98 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 13.82 10.17 48.96 0.84 5.35 3.99 2.10 6.59 0.63 7.50 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 6.12 0.87 5.83 1.50 3.87 0.77 0.63 4.00 0.16 2.73 0.00 0.00 Borewell 6 Mean (mg/L) 231.15 147.59 961.15 24.77 167.33 82.09 31.7 253.2 5.88 195.88 0.00 0.00 (0.595 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 50.25 14.1 93.99 4.31 84.42 10.23 4.52 71.37 1.51 60 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 11.01 7.03 45.78 1.18 7.97 3.91 1.51 12.06 0.28 9.33 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 2.39 0.67 4.48 0.21 4.02 0.49 0.22 3.4 0.07 2.86 0.00 0.00 Borewell 7 Mean (mg/L) 111.31 27.57 251.16 3.85 14.06 31.91 6.57 79.94 1.57 14.98 0.00 0.00 (4.15 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 41.24 5.52 18.57 1.47 5.17 7.76 1.87 24.42 0.36 5.11 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 20.51 5.08 46.28 0.71 2.59 5.88 1.21 14.73 0.29 2.76 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 7.6 1.02 3.42 0.27 0.95 1.43 0.34 4.5 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.00 Borewell 8 Mean (mg/L) 91.24 47.39 331.77 10.73 43.29 37 10.38 80.01 4.03 50.42 0.00 0.00 (8.64 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 31.86 3.37 19.24 2.06 12.97 4.26 1.22 18.42 0.63 10.59 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 12.92 6.71 46.98 1.52 6.13 5.24 1.47 11.33 0.57 7.14 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 4.51 0.48 2.72 0.29 1.84 0.6 0.17 2.61 0.09 1.5 0.00 0.00 Borewell 9 Mean (mg/L) 103.58 54.36 316.02 9.95 51.34 26.7 12.08 67.27 1.65 40.5 0.00 3.02 (0.12 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 56.39 10 39.49 3.09 20.6 6 3.75 27.88 0.63 13.71 0.00 9.93 Mean (%) 15.09 7.92 46.04 1.45 7.48 3.89 1.76 9.8 0.24 5.9 0.00 0.44 SD (%) 8.22 1.46 5.75 0.45 3 0.87 0.55 4.06 0.09 2 0.00 1.45 Borewell 10 Mean (mg/L) 165.78 41.3 370.31 8.11 44.08 27.87 7.26 81.16 1.69 96.95 0.00 0.00 (0.74 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 32.51 14.35 39.66 3.48 19.81 7.44 2.11 28.41 0.72 28.74 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 19.63 4.89 43.85 0.96 5.22 3.3 0.86 9.61 0.2 11.48 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 3.85 1.7 4.7 0.41 2.35 0.88 0.25 3.36 0.09 3.4 0.00 0.00 Borewell 11 Mean (mg/L) 251.7 0 226.54 10.41 56.57 15.45 7.85 52.87 0.77 16.47 0.00 0.00 (1.27 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 54.04 0 78.41 11.54 31.48 8 4.96 41.63 0.76 21.52 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 39.42 0 35.48 1.63 8.86 2.42 1.23 8.28 0.12 2.58 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 8.46 0 12.28 1.81 4.93 1.25 0.78 6.52 0.12 3.37 0.00 0.00 Borewell 12 Mean (mg/L) 84.03 45.89 445.46 16.22 37.96 36.62 11.76 82.16 2.05 129.03 0.00 0.00 (0.21 ppm U) SD (mg/L) 32.29 7.36 43.55 13.65 31.12 7.08 3.52 32.96 0.55 43.37 0.00 0.00 Mean (%) 9.43 5.15 49.99 1.82 4.26 4.11 1.32 9.22 0.23 14.48 0.00 0.00 SD (%) 3.62 0.83 4.89 1.53 3.49 0.79 0.4 3.7 0.06 4.87 0.00 0.00 Conc. (mg / L) Mean (mg/L) 129.57 42.16 344.18 8.98 48.11 30.87 11.27 80.47 2.10 62.96 0.02 0.25 SD (mg/L) 70.02 38.13 224.92 6.60 40.69 20.53 7.04 67.60 1.62 56.45 0.07 0.87 Correlation -0.27 -0.10 -0.20 -0.03 -0.25 0.05 -0.31 0.02 0.21 -0.22 -0.15 -0.16 P-value 0.39 0.75 0.53 0.92 0.42 0.87 0.32 0.95 0.5 0.48 0.63 0.62 Relative % Mean (%) 19.13 5.32 45.49 1.10 6.46 3.92 1.68 9.27 0.28 7.31 0.00 0.04 SD (%) 9.82 2.82 4.15 0.44 2.23 1.39 0.789 4.03 0.17 3.55 0.01 0.13 Correlation -0.1 0.06 0.03 0.22 -0.28 0.45 -0.24 0.36 0.49 -0.2 -0.15 -0.16 P-value 0.75 0.85 0.93 0.49 0.37 0.14 0.44 0.24 0.1 0.54 0.63 0.62 Chintamani groundwater datasets Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium concentration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. We found a statistically significant difference (p = 0.048, Welch 2-sample T-test, one-tailed) between the uranium concentration of groundwater in the northwestern region (NW, borewells 1, 6-12) compared to groundwater in the rest of Chintamani village (borewells 2-5). Table 1 depicts uranium concentrations quantified using ICP-MS from these 12 groundwater samples. Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (Borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (Borewell 8). There exists a weak correlation (r = 0.49, Pearson’s coefficient) between uranium concentration and well depth. However, the correlation is not statistically significant (p = 0.14). ICP-MS reports quantifying uranium content for each sample can be found in Supplementary Dataset S1. 20 Table 2 represents the elemental composition of the total dissolved solids (TDS) obtained after drying groundwater samples collected from Chintamani village. For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. The elemental composition of dried TDS was determined using SEM-EDS. Elemental composition is expressed in absolute terms (mg of element per liter of groundwater, mg / L) and in relative terms (% composition compared to all other elements present in dried TDS). Pearson’s correlation coefficients are provided for both expressions of elemental composition by comparing the values for every element with the corresponding uranium concentration (in ppm) (refer Table 1 ). It was observed that the % composition of K (r = 0.49, p = 0.1) and Mg (r = 0.45, p = 0.14) were weakly correlated with uranium concentration, although these correlations were not statistically significant. No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. SEM-EDS spectra and reports quantifying the elemental composition of each sample can be found in Supplementary Dataset S2. 21 Conclusion We have presented a dataset containing uranyl concentrations from groundwater obtained from 12 borewells across Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India. Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO), 9 and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, and 9 wells possessed uranium concentrations >0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1, 6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4, 5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity, 10 , 11 bone function impairments, 16 developmental and reproductive toxicity 17 are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. R Srinivasan et al. 18 previously conducted a survey on the groundwater uranium concentrations of villages in eastern Karnataka. Their study was broader in scope and sampled 73 villages. As a consequence, the samples collected per village were low. R Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani village. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani village. We have measured groundwater uranium concentrations using ICP-MS, which helps confirm previous fluorimetric measurements. 18 Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. We have provided two datasets: ICP-MS data for groundwater uranium concentration (Dataset S1 19 ), and SEM-EDS data for the elemental compositions of TDS obtained from these groundwater samples (Dataset S2 20 ). These datasets, along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions ( Figure 1B ), could potentially be used as resources for guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Ethics and consent Ethical consent and approval were not required. Author contributions Authors Sadashiva Rampur, Mahesh Kumar V.K., and Pavan R. Pelli surveyed and collected water samples from Chintamani village. Authors Senjuti Sarkar, Samayeta Pramanik, Upama Majumdar, Shravanthi S., and Bhavana Meenakshi T. processed groundwater samples to quantify TDS content, and processed samples for SEM-EDS and ICP-MS experiments. Authors Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan and Rushi Pendem analyzed and interpreted all data. Authors Senjuti Sarkar, Tanushree Ghosh, and Deepesh Nagarajan conceived the project and designed all experiments. All authors took part in drafting the manuscript and provided final approval before submission. Data availability Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). All raw data have been made publicly available for use by the research community. Underlying data Repository name: Dataset S1: ICP-MS data for groundwater uranium concentration in ppm. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28491125.v1 . 20 The project contains the following underlying data: • dataset-s1.pdf ICP-MS reports (generated by Eurofins India, Bangalore) for the uranium concentrations of groundwater samples from borewells 1-12 (reported in ppm). Water samples were collected from Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India, during the period of August 2024 to December 2024. Repository name: Dataset S2: SEM-EDS spectra of groundwater TDS, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28491146.v1 . 21 The project contains the following underlying data: • dataset-s2.pdf SEM-EDS spectra and reports (generated by Icon Labs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai) for the elemental composition of total dissolved solids (TDS) obtained after drying groundwater samples from borewells 1-12. Water samples were collected from Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India, during the period of August 2024 to December 2024. Acknowledgements The authors extend their thanks to Mr. Kiran Rambhau Bhotkar (Assistant Manager - Application Support, SEM-EDS) and Mrs. Sunita Samgir (Senior Executive - Application Support, SEM-EDS) from Icon Labs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for their excellent work as our scanning electron microscopy technicians. References 1. Ayotte JD, Flanagan SM, Morrow WS: Occurrence of uranium and 222radon in glacial and bedrock aquifers in the northern United States, 1993-2003. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey; 2007. 2. Churchill R: Geologic controls on the distribution of radon in california. USA: The Department of Health Services; 1991. 3. Adams JAS, Kenneth Osmond J, Rogers JJW: The geochemistry of thorium and uranium. Phys. Chem. Earth. 1959; 3 : 298–348. Publisher Full Text 4. Schnug E, Lottermoser BG: Fertilizer-derived uranium and its threat to human health.2013. 5. Jurgens BC, Fram MS, Belitz K, et al. : Effects of groundwater development on uranium: Central Valley, California, USA. Groundwater. 2010; 48 (6): 913–928. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Ya W, Wang Y, Xie X: Occurrence, behavior and distribution of high levels of uranium in shallow groundwater at Datong basin, northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2014; 472 : 809–817. Publisher Full Text 7. EFS Authority: Uranium in foodstuffs, in particular mineral water. EFSA J. 2009; 7 : 1018. Publisher Full Text 8. Nriagu J, Nam D-H, Ayanwola TA, et al. : High levels of uranium in groundwater of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Sci. Total Environ. 2012; 414 : 722–726. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Chen L, Liu J, Zhang W, et al. : Uranium (U) source, speciation, uptake, toxicity and bioremediation strategies in soil-plant system: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021; 413 : 125319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Shtangeeva I: 14 Uranium and Thorium Accumulation in Cultivated Plants. Trace elements as contaminants and nutrients: Consequences in ecosystems and human health; 2008; p. 295. Publisher Full Text 11. Nordberg GF, Costa M: Handbook on the toxicology of metals: volume II: Specific Metals. Academic Press; 2021. 12. Cho B-W, Kim D-S, Kim M-S, et al. : Hydrogeochemical characteristics of uranium and radon in groundwater from the Goesan area of the Ogcheon metamorphic belt (OMB), Korea. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (20): 11261. Publisher Full Text 13. Vicente-Vicente L, Quiros Y, Pérez-Barriocanal F, et al. : Nephrotoxicity of uranium: pathophysiological, diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Toxicol. Sci. 2010; 118 (2): 324–347. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Seldén AI, Lundholm C, Edlund B, et al. : Nephrotoxicity of uranium in drinking water from private drilled wells. Environ. Res. 2009; 109 (4): 486–494. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Kurttio P, Auvinen A, Salonen L, et al. : Renal effects of uranium in drinking water. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002; 110 (4): 337–342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 16. Arzuaga X, Gehlhaus M, Strong J: Modes of action associated with uranium induced adverse effects in bone function and development. Toxicol. Lett. 2015; 236 (2): 123–130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 17. Domingo JL: Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium: a review. Reprod. Toxicol. 2001; 15 (6): 603–609. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. Srinivasan R, Pandit SA, Karunakara N, et al. : High uranium concentration in groundwater used for drinking in parts of eastern Karnataka, India. Curr. Sci. 2021; 121 (11): 1459–1469. Publisher Full Text 19. Central Ground Water Board: Report on Uranium in Ground Water (2019–20). Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation; 2020. 20. Nagarajan D: Dataset S1: ICP-MS data for groundwater uranium concentration in ppm. Figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text 21. Nagarajan D: Dataset S2: SEM-EDS spectra of groundwater TDS. Figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text 22. Cheng J, Karambelkar B, Xie Y, et al. : Package ‘leaflet’. R package version. 2019; 2 (1). Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Life and Allied Health Sciences, M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India Sadashiva Rampur Roles: Investigation Mahesh Kumar V. K. Roles: Investigation Pavan R. Pelli Roles: Investigation Senjuti Sarkar Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology Samayeta Pramanik Roles: Investigation Upama Majumder Roles: Investigation Shravanthi S. Roles: Investigation Bhavana Meenakshi T. Roles: Investigation Srinidhi G. Santhanakrishnan Roles: Formal Analysis Rushi Pendem Roles: Formal Analysis Tanushree Ghosh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision Deepesh Nagarajan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 21 Aug 2025, 14:321 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.3 version 2 Revised Published: 21 May 2025, 14:321 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.2 version 1 Published: 24 Mar 2025, 14:321 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.1 Copyright © 2025 Rampur S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Rampur S, V. K. MK, Pelli PR et al. The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162525.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 21 Aug 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Misra N. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185995.r407690 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3#referee-response-407690 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Sep 2025 Nilanjal Misra , Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185995.r407690 Manuscript is acceptable ... Continue reading READ ALL Manuscript is acceptable in its current form. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Development of environmentally sustainable technologies for heavy metal ion remediation in ground water I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Misra N. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185995.r407690 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3#referee-response-407690 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 21 May 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Misra N. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r399030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-399030 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Aug 2025 Nilanjal Misra , Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r399030 Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. The determination of elemental composition and ... Continue reading READ ALL Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. Since the authors have mentoned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a corelation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Partly Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Development of environmentally sustainable technologies for heavy metal ion remediation in ground water I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Misra N. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r399030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-399030 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 05 Sep 2025 Author Response AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set ... Continue reading AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We agree with the reviewer. We can only draw conclusions about the pattern of U concentration within and immediately surrounding Chintamani village (the zone of this study). In the manuscript, we have not drawn any conclusions about the pattern of U concentration in the Eastern Karnataka region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. AUTHOR RESPONSE : For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. In Table 2, we have provided correlation coefficients for both the absolute concentrations and relative % of every element observed, compared to uranium concentration. We observed no strong, statistically significant correlation coefficients for any element. We only observed weak correlations between U and K/Mg. Nevertheless, we have made the raw data available to the research community in Dataset S2, for other groups to analyze. Since the authors have mentioned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a correlation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. AUTHOR RESPONSE : As we have estimated uranium concentration using ICP-MS, which has a low margin of error (1-3%), only one sample per borewell was required. Furthermore, due to funding constraints, we were only able to conduct a finite number of measurements. Measuring uranium concentration repeatedly for a single well would decrease the total number of wells sampled. In Table 1 , we have provided the mean/SD of uranium concentrations across all borewells in Chintamani village. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We agree with the reviewer. We can only draw conclusions about the pattern of U concentration within and immediately surrounding Chintamani village (the zone of this study). In the manuscript, we have not drawn any conclusions about the pattern of U concentration in the Eastern Karnataka region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. AUTHOR RESPONSE : For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. In Table 2, we have provided correlation coefficients for both the absolute concentrations and relative % of every element observed, compared to uranium concentration. We observed no strong, statistically significant correlation coefficients for any element. We only observed weak correlations between U and K/Mg. Nevertheless, we have made the raw data available to the research community in Dataset S2, for other groups to analyze. Since the authors have mentioned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a correlation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. AUTHOR RESPONSE : As we have estimated uranium concentration using ICP-MS, which has a low margin of error (1-3%), only one sample per borewell was required. Furthermore, due to funding constraints, we were only able to conduct a finite number of measurements. Measuring uranium concentration repeatedly for a single well would decrease the total number of wells sampled. In Table 1 , we have provided the mean/SD of uranium concentrations across all borewells in Chintamani village. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 05 Sep 2025 Author Response AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set ... Continue reading AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We agree with the reviewer. We can only draw conclusions about the pattern of U concentration within and immediately surrounding Chintamani village (the zone of this study). In the manuscript, we have not drawn any conclusions about the pattern of U concentration in the Eastern Karnataka region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. AUTHOR RESPONSE : For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. In Table 2, we have provided correlation coefficients for both the absolute concentrations and relative % of every element observed, compared to uranium concentration. We observed no strong, statistically significant correlation coefficients for any element. We only observed weak correlations between U and K/Mg. Nevertheless, we have made the raw data available to the research community in Dataset S2, for other groups to analyze. Since the authors have mentioned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a correlation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. AUTHOR RESPONSE : As we have estimated uranium concentration using ICP-MS, which has a low margin of error (1-3%), only one sample per borewell was required. Furthermore, due to funding constraints, we were only able to conduct a finite number of measurements. Measuring uranium concentration repeatedly for a single well would decrease the total number of wells sampled. In Table 1 , we have provided the mean/SD of uranium concentrations across all borewells in Chintamani village. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We agree with the reviewer. We can only draw conclusions about the pattern of U concentration within and immediately surrounding Chintamani village (the zone of this study). In the manuscript, we have not drawn any conclusions about the pattern of U concentration in the Eastern Karnataka region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. AUTHOR RESPONSE : For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. In Table 2, we have provided correlation coefficients for both the absolute concentrations and relative % of every element observed, compared to uranium concentration. We observed no strong, statistically significant correlation coefficients for any element. We only observed weak correlations between U and K/Mg. Nevertheless, we have made the raw data available to the research community in Dataset S2, for other groups to analyze. Since the authors have mentioned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a correlation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. AUTHOR RESPONSE : As we have estimated uranium concentration using ICP-MS, which has a low margin of error (1-3%), only one sample per borewell was required. Furthermore, due to funding constraints, we were only able to conduct a finite number of measurements. Measuring uranium concentration repeatedly for a single well would decrease the total number of wells sampled. In Table 1 , we have provided the mean/SD of uranium concentrations across all borewells in Chintamani village. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: O. Omokpariola D. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r383555 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-383555 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 May 2025 Daniel O. Omokpariola , Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r383555 Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region. ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology; Remote Sensing; Atmospheric and Water chemistry; Risk assessment and Project Management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT O. Omokpariola D. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r383555 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-383555 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns ... Continue reading Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns raised below. 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We have now mentioned this in the Introduction section of the manuscript. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The data confirms and expands on previous findings due to our larger sample size (n=12), spatial groundwater uranium map withing Chintamai village (Figure 1), and the use of a more rigorous method (ICP-MS) to quantify groundwater concentrations. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The raw data along with our kernel density estimate (Figure 1) of groundwater uranium concentrations divides Chintamani village into groundwater zones possessing different groundwater uranium concentrations. Borewells and areas possessing higher groundwater uranium concentrations may be assigned a higher priority for remediation. This is now mentioned in the conclusion section. “ These datasets along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions (FIgure 1B) could potentially be used as resources for prioritizing guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. “ 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region . AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have elaborated on our rationale in the Introduction (paragraph 5). ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined uranium exposure routes in the Introduction (paragraph 3 and 4). Introduction paragraph 3: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage [9]. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants [10] and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Introduction paragraph 4: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form [11]. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes [12], minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Instead, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined the health risks associated with uranium exposure in the Introduction (paragraph 5). Introduction paragraph 5: Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity [14 , 15], with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans [16]. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion [16]. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development [17], reproductive and developmental toxicity [18]. 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have expanded the conclusion section to discuss the scope, novelty, and utility of our data. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a kernel density estimate of the groundwater uranium concentrations in and around Chintamani village (Figure 1B) that quantifies the spatial distribution of uranium. c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have discussed this in the Conclusion section (paragraph 1): Conclusion paragraph 1: According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [ 9 ] and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm and 97 wells possessed uranium concentrations with >,0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. AUTHOR RESPONSE : Currently, this study does not report the environmental or public health effects of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village. We believe that further environmental / patient data from Chintamani village needs to be collected before commenting on these issues. We have mentioned this in the Conclusion (paragraph 4) Conclusion paragraph 4: Further work is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Latitudes and longitudes for all 12 samples are included in Table 1. ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Borewells were initially randomly selected across the area in and around Chintamani village. Further samples were collected from the area around the borewell possessing the highest uranium concentration (Borewell 1). This has now been mentioned in the Introduction (paragraph 5) and Datasets section (paragraph 1). Introduction paragraph 5: “In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. “ Datasets paragraph 1: Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium con- centration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. Author response provided under query 5d: b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). Author response provided under query 5d: c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. AUTHOR RESPONSE : 10 of the 12 borewells possessed uranium concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation ≤0.03 ppm U). 9 of 12 borewells exceeded the atomic energy regulatory board (AERB) recommendation of (≤0.06 ppm U). We have highlighted these borewells in Table 1 (in bold and underlined font). To avoid visual clutter, we have only highlighted these wells in Table 1 and not in Figure 1A or 1B. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. AUTHOR RESPONSE for 5a, 5b, and 5d : We agree that the Tables 1 and 2 are very information dense. Our key findings are reported in Table 1 (groundwater uranium concentration for each borewell). We have now depicted this data in a visual format. We have added a local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. This data is provided in Figure 1B. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” AUTHOR RESPONSE : All instances of “forevery” have been changed to “for every” in the manuscript. Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected this statement in the Methods subsection “Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification”. It now reads: For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80◦C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. “ Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The conclusion (paragraph 1) now contains a summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. AUTHOR RESPONSE to c/d : The conclusion (paragraph 4) now touches upon this issue. Further work is required before making public health recommendations. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. AUTHOR RESPONSE to e/f/g/h: We have addressed these limitations in the conclusion, paragraphs 4 and 5: Conclusion (paragraph 4): Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. Conclusion (paragraph 5): Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a visual summary in Figure 1B. Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns raised below. 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We have now mentioned this in the Introduction section of the manuscript. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The data confirms and expands on previous findings due to our larger sample size (n=12), spatial groundwater uranium map withing Chintamai village (Figure 1), and the use of a more rigorous method (ICP-MS) to quantify groundwater concentrations. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The raw data along with our kernel density estimate (Figure 1) of groundwater uranium concentrations divides Chintamani village into groundwater zones possessing different groundwater uranium concentrations. Borewells and areas possessing higher groundwater uranium concentrations may be assigned a higher priority for remediation. This is now mentioned in the conclusion section. “ These datasets along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions (FIgure 1B) could potentially be used as resources for prioritizing guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. “ 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region . AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have elaborated on our rationale in the Introduction (paragraph 5). ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined uranium exposure routes in the Introduction (paragraph 3 and 4). Introduction paragraph 3: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage [9]. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants [10] and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Introduction paragraph 4: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form [11]. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes [12], minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Instead, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined the health risks associated with uranium exposure in the Introduction (paragraph 5). Introduction paragraph 5: Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity [14 , 15], with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans [16]. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion [16]. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development [17], reproductive and developmental toxicity [18]. 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have expanded the conclusion section to discuss the scope, novelty, and utility of our data. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a kernel density estimate of the groundwater uranium concentrations in and around Chintamani village (Figure 1B) that quantifies the spatial distribution of uranium. c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have discussed this in the Conclusion section (paragraph 1): Conclusion paragraph 1: According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [ 9 ] and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm and 97 wells possessed uranium concentrations with >,0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. AUTHOR RESPONSE : Currently, this study does not report the environmental or public health effects of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village. We believe that further environmental / patient data from Chintamani village needs to be collected before commenting on these issues. We have mentioned this in the Conclusion (paragraph 4) Conclusion paragraph 4: Further work is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Latitudes and longitudes for all 12 samples are included in Table 1. ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Borewells were initially randomly selected across the area in and around Chintamani village. Further samples were collected from the area around the borewell possessing the highest uranium concentration (Borewell 1). This has now been mentioned in the Introduction (paragraph 5) and Datasets section (paragraph 1). Introduction paragraph 5: “In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. “ Datasets paragraph 1: Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium con- centration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. Author response provided under query 5d: b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). Author response provided under query 5d: c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. AUTHOR RESPONSE : 10 of the 12 borewells possessed uranium concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation ≤0.03 ppm U). 9 of 12 borewells exceeded the atomic energy regulatory board (AERB) recommendation of (≤0.06 ppm U). We have highlighted these borewells in Table 1 (in bold and underlined font). To avoid visual clutter, we have only highlighted these wells in Table 1 and not in Figure 1A or 1B. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. AUTHOR RESPONSE for 5a, 5b, and 5d : We agree that the Tables 1 and 2 are very information dense. Our key findings are reported in Table 1 (groundwater uranium concentration for each borewell). We have now depicted this data in a visual format. We have added a local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. This data is provided in Figure 1B. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” AUTHOR RESPONSE : All instances of “forevery” have been changed to “for every” in the manuscript. Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected this statement in the Methods subsection “Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification”. It now reads: For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80◦C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. “ Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The conclusion (paragraph 1) now contains a summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. AUTHOR RESPONSE to c/d : The conclusion (paragraph 4) now touches upon this issue. Further work is required before making public health recommendations. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. AUTHOR RESPONSE to e/f/g/h: We have addressed these limitations in the conclusion, paragraphs 4 and 5: Conclusion (paragraph 4): Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. Conclusion (paragraph 5): Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a visual summary in Figure 1B. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 23 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns ... Continue reading Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns raised below. 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We have now mentioned this in the Introduction section of the manuscript. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The data confirms and expands on previous findings due to our larger sample size (n=12), spatial groundwater uranium map withing Chintamai village (Figure 1), and the use of a more rigorous method (ICP-MS) to quantify groundwater concentrations. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The raw data along with our kernel density estimate (Figure 1) of groundwater uranium concentrations divides Chintamani village into groundwater zones possessing different groundwater uranium concentrations. Borewells and areas possessing higher groundwater uranium concentrations may be assigned a higher priority for remediation. This is now mentioned in the conclusion section. “ These datasets along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions (FIgure 1B) could potentially be used as resources for prioritizing guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. “ 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region . AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have elaborated on our rationale in the Introduction (paragraph 5). ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined uranium exposure routes in the Introduction (paragraph 3 and 4). Introduction paragraph 3: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage [9]. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants [10] and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Introduction paragraph 4: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form [11]. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes [12], minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Instead, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined the health risks associated with uranium exposure in the Introduction (paragraph 5). Introduction paragraph 5: Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity [14 , 15], with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans [16]. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion [16]. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development [17], reproductive and developmental toxicity [18]. 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have expanded the conclusion section to discuss the scope, novelty, and utility of our data. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a kernel density estimate of the groundwater uranium concentrations in and around Chintamani village (Figure 1B) that quantifies the spatial distribution of uranium. c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have discussed this in the Conclusion section (paragraph 1): Conclusion paragraph 1: According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [ 9 ] and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm and 97 wells possessed uranium concentrations with >,0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. AUTHOR RESPONSE : Currently, this study does not report the environmental or public health effects of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village. We believe that further environmental / patient data from Chintamani village needs to be collected before commenting on these issues. We have mentioned this in the Conclusion (paragraph 4) Conclusion paragraph 4: Further work is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Latitudes and longitudes for all 12 samples are included in Table 1. ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Borewells were initially randomly selected across the area in and around Chintamani village. Further samples were collected from the area around the borewell possessing the highest uranium concentration (Borewell 1). This has now been mentioned in the Introduction (paragraph 5) and Datasets section (paragraph 1). Introduction paragraph 5: “In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. “ Datasets paragraph 1: Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium con- centration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. Author response provided under query 5d: b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). Author response provided under query 5d: c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. AUTHOR RESPONSE : 10 of the 12 borewells possessed uranium concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation ≤0.03 ppm U). 9 of 12 borewells exceeded the atomic energy regulatory board (AERB) recommendation of (≤0.06 ppm U). We have highlighted these borewells in Table 1 (in bold and underlined font). To avoid visual clutter, we have only highlighted these wells in Table 1 and not in Figure 1A or 1B. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. AUTHOR RESPONSE for 5a, 5b, and 5d : We agree that the Tables 1 and 2 are very information dense. Our key findings are reported in Table 1 (groundwater uranium concentration for each borewell). We have now depicted this data in a visual format. We have added a local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. This data is provided in Figure 1B. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” AUTHOR RESPONSE : All instances of “forevery” have been changed to “for every” in the manuscript. Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected this statement in the Methods subsection “Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification”. It now reads: For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80◦C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. “ Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The conclusion (paragraph 1) now contains a summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. AUTHOR RESPONSE to c/d : The conclusion (paragraph 4) now touches upon this issue. Further work is required before making public health recommendations. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. AUTHOR RESPONSE to e/f/g/h: We have addressed these limitations in the conclusion, paragraphs 4 and 5: Conclusion (paragraph 4): Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. Conclusion (paragraph 5): Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a visual summary in Figure 1B. Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns raised below. 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We have now mentioned this in the Introduction section of the manuscript. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The data confirms and expands on previous findings due to our larger sample size (n=12), spatial groundwater uranium map withing Chintamai village (Figure 1), and the use of a more rigorous method (ICP-MS) to quantify groundwater concentrations. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The raw data along with our kernel density estimate (Figure 1) of groundwater uranium concentrations divides Chintamani village into groundwater zones possessing different groundwater uranium concentrations. Borewells and areas possessing higher groundwater uranium concentrations may be assigned a higher priority for remediation. This is now mentioned in the conclusion section. “ These datasets along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions (FIgure 1B) could potentially be used as resources for prioritizing guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. “ 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region . AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have elaborated on our rationale in the Introduction (paragraph 5). ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined uranium exposure routes in the Introduction (paragraph 3 and 4). Introduction paragraph 3: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage [9]. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants [10] and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Introduction paragraph 4: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form [11]. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes [12], minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Instead, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined the health risks associated with uranium exposure in the Introduction (paragraph 5). Introduction paragraph 5: Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity [14 , 15], with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans [16]. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion [16]. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development [17], reproductive and developmental toxicity [18]. 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have expanded the conclusion section to discuss the scope, novelty, and utility of our data. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a kernel density estimate of the groundwater uranium concentrations in and around Chintamani village (Figure 1B) that quantifies the spatial distribution of uranium. c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have discussed this in the Conclusion section (paragraph 1): Conclusion paragraph 1: According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [ 9 ] and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm and 97 wells possessed uranium concentrations with >,0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. AUTHOR RESPONSE : Currently, this study does not report the environmental or public health effects of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village. We believe that further environmental / patient data from Chintamani village needs to be collected before commenting on these issues. We have mentioned this in the Conclusion (paragraph 4) Conclusion paragraph 4: Further work is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Latitudes and longitudes for all 12 samples are included in Table 1. ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Borewells were initially randomly selected across the area in and around Chintamani village. Further samples were collected from the area around the borewell possessing the highest uranium concentration (Borewell 1). This has now been mentioned in the Introduction (paragraph 5) and Datasets section (paragraph 1). Introduction paragraph 5: “In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. “ Datasets paragraph 1: Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium con- centration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. Author response provided under query 5d: b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). Author response provided under query 5d: c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. AUTHOR RESPONSE : 10 of the 12 borewells possessed uranium concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation ≤0.03 ppm U). 9 of 12 borewells exceeded the atomic energy regulatory board (AERB) recommendation of (≤0.06 ppm U). We have highlighted these borewells in Table 1 (in bold and underlined font). To avoid visual clutter, we have only highlighted these wells in Table 1 and not in Figure 1A or 1B. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. AUTHOR RESPONSE for 5a, 5b, and 5d : We agree that the Tables 1 and 2 are very information dense. Our key findings are reported in Table 1 (groundwater uranium concentration for each borewell). We have now depicted this data in a visual format. We have added a local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. This data is provided in Figure 1B. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” AUTHOR RESPONSE : All instances of “forevery” have been changed to “for every” in the manuscript. Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected this statement in the Methods subsection “Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification”. It now reads: For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80◦C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. “ Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The conclusion (paragraph 1) now contains a summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. AUTHOR RESPONSE to c/d : The conclusion (paragraph 4) now touches upon this issue. Further work is required before making public health recommendations. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. AUTHOR RESPONSE to e/f/g/h: We have addressed these limitations in the conclusion, paragraphs 4 and 5: Conclusion (paragraph 4): Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. Conclusion (paragraph 5): Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a visual summary in Figure 1B. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Owonikoko WM. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178738.r376222 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v1#referee-response-376222 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Apr 2025 Wasiu Mathew Owonikoko , Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178738.r376222 The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments ... Continue reading READ ALL The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is is widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purpose? Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes? 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Owonikoko WM. Reviewer Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178738.r376222 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v1#referee-response-376222 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 03 Jun 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 03 Jun 2025 Author Response The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very ... Continue reading The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments, and have addressed all his comments below. Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have provided the coordinates (latitude / longitude) for every sample in Table 1. We have now referred to Table in the sample collection section. “ Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. ” “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have removed the () in t.test. The sentence now reads: “ This was performed using the function t.test ” The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is it widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following material to the conclusion , discussing the distribution and systemic health effects of uranium: Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations , uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity , bone function impairments , developmental and reproductive toxicity are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purposes? AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. R. Srinivasan et al. (reference 19) previously reported high uranium concentrations in groundwater in parts of eastern Karnataka (a state in India). Their study was broad in scope, reporting uranium concentrations from 73 separate villages in the state. Due to the broad scope, only 1-2 samples per village were collected. The authors did not report the exact location of sample collection for every village. Our study is narrower in scope, as we survey the spatial distribution of groundwater uranium concentration in a single village (Chintamani). We show that uranium concentrations in groundwater can greatly vary even within the water table of a single village. R. Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani. Our two studies therefore have different scopes and complement each other. This has now been mentioned in the Conclusion section. Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. As Chintamani is an agricultural village, we believe it’s pertinent to discuss uranium uptake in plants in addition to animals and humans. We have now discussed these issues in the introduction section. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes ? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Oral consumption of uranium leads to nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are now discussed in the introduction section. 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Oral consumption of uranium-contaminated groundwater leads to systemic toxicological effects: nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are discussed in the introduction section alongside health risks associated with oral consumption (previous comment). AUTHOR RESPONSE: The relevant excerpt for the introduction section covering Major comment points 1-3 is provided below: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum uranium concentration of 30 ppb in drinking water to minimize health risks. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity , with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his meticulous feedback, and we hope to have addressed all the concerns raised in this response. The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments, and have addressed all his comments below. Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have provided the coordinates (latitude / longitude) for every sample in Table 1. We have now referred to Table in the sample collection section. “ Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. ” “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have removed the () in t.test. The sentence now reads: “ This was performed using the function t.test ” The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is it widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following material to the conclusion , discussing the distribution and systemic health effects of uranium: Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations , uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity , bone function impairments , developmental and reproductive toxicity are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purposes? AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. R. Srinivasan et al. (reference 19) previously reported high uranium concentrations in groundwater in parts of eastern Karnataka (a state in India). Their study was broad in scope, reporting uranium concentrations from 73 separate villages in the state. Due to the broad scope, only 1-2 samples per village were collected. The authors did not report the exact location of sample collection for every village. Our study is narrower in scope, as we survey the spatial distribution of groundwater uranium concentration in a single village (Chintamani). We show that uranium concentrations in groundwater can greatly vary even within the water table of a single village. R. Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani. Our two studies therefore have different scopes and complement each other. This has now been mentioned in the Conclusion section. Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. As Chintamani is an agricultural village, we believe it’s pertinent to discuss uranium uptake in plants in addition to animals and humans. We have now discussed these issues in the introduction section. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes ? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Oral consumption of uranium leads to nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are now discussed in the introduction section. 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Oral consumption of uranium-contaminated groundwater leads to systemic toxicological effects: nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are discussed in the introduction section alongside health risks associated with oral consumption (previous comment). AUTHOR RESPONSE: The relevant excerpt for the introduction section covering Major comment points 1-3 is provided below: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum uranium concentration of 30 ppb in drinking water to minimize health risks. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity , with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his meticulous feedback, and we hope to have addressed all the concerns raised in this response. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 03 Jun 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan , $usrAffiliation 03 Jun 2025 Author Response The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very ... Continue reading The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments, and have addressed all his comments below. Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have provided the coordinates (latitude / longitude) for every sample in Table 1. We have now referred to Table in the sample collection section. “ Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. ” “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have removed the () in t.test. The sentence now reads: “ This was performed using the function t.test ” The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is it widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following material to the conclusion , discussing the distribution and systemic health effects of uranium: Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations , uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity , bone function impairments , developmental and reproductive toxicity are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purposes? AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. R. Srinivasan et al. (reference 19) previously reported high uranium concentrations in groundwater in parts of eastern Karnataka (a state in India). Their study was broad in scope, reporting uranium concentrations from 73 separate villages in the state. Due to the broad scope, only 1-2 samples per village were collected. The authors did not report the exact location of sample collection for every village. Our study is narrower in scope, as we survey the spatial distribution of groundwater uranium concentration in a single village (Chintamani). We show that uranium concentrations in groundwater can greatly vary even within the water table of a single village. R. Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani. Our two studies therefore have different scopes and complement each other. This has now been mentioned in the Conclusion section. Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. As Chintamani is an agricultural village, we believe it’s pertinent to discuss uranium uptake in plants in addition to animals and humans. We have now discussed these issues in the introduction section. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes ? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Oral consumption of uranium leads to nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are now discussed in the introduction section. 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Oral consumption of uranium-contaminated groundwater leads to systemic toxicological effects: nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are discussed in the introduction section alongside health risks associated with oral consumption (previous comment). AUTHOR RESPONSE: The relevant excerpt for the introduction section covering Major comment points 1-3 is provided below: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum uranium concentration of 30 ppb in drinking water to minimize health risks. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity , with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his meticulous feedback, and we hope to have addressed all the concerns raised in this response. The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments, and have addressed all his comments below. Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have provided the coordinates (latitude / longitude) for every sample in Table 1. We have now referred to Table in the sample collection section. “ Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. ” “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have removed the () in t.test. The sentence now reads: “ This was performed using the function t.test ” The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is it widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following material to the conclusion , discussing the distribution and systemic health effects of uranium: Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations , uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity , bone function impairments , developmental and reproductive toxicity are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purposes? AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. R. Srinivasan et al. (reference 19) previously reported high uranium concentrations in groundwater in parts of eastern Karnataka (a state in India). Their study was broad in scope, reporting uranium concentrations from 73 separate villages in the state. Due to the broad scope, only 1-2 samples per village were collected. The authors did not report the exact location of sample collection for every village. Our study is narrower in scope, as we survey the spatial distribution of groundwater uranium concentration in a single village (Chintamani). We show that uranium concentrations in groundwater can greatly vary even within the water table of a single village. R. Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani. Our two studies therefore have different scopes and complement each other. This has now been mentioned in the Conclusion section. Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. As Chintamani is an agricultural village, we believe it’s pertinent to discuss uranium uptake in plants in addition to animals and humans. We have now discussed these issues in the introduction section. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes ? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Oral consumption of uranium leads to nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are now discussed in the introduction section. 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Oral consumption of uranium-contaminated groundwater leads to systemic toxicological effects: nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are discussed in the introduction section alongside health risks associated with oral consumption (previous comment). AUTHOR RESPONSE: The relevant excerpt for the introduction section covering Major comment points 1-3 is provided below: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum uranium concentration of 30 ppb in drinking water to minimize health risks. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity , with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his meticulous feedback, and we hope to have addressed all the concerns raised in this response. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 21 Aug 25 read Version 2 (revision) 21 May 25 read read Version 1 24 Mar 25 read Wasiu Mathew Owonikoko , Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria Daniel O. Omokpariola , Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Nilanjal Misra , Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, India Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Misra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Sep 2025 | for Version 3 Nilanjal Misra , Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Misra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Manuscript is acceptable in its current form. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Development of environmentally sustainable technologies for heavy metal ion remediation in ground water I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Misra N. Peer Review Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185995.r407690) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3#referee-response-407690 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Misra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Nilanjal Misra , Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Misra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. Since the authors have mentoned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a corelation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Partly Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Development of environmentally sustainable technologies for heavy metal ion remediation in ground water I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan, AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for raising important issues in his review, and have addressed all his concerns below: Although the work is well intended, the data set presented is relatively small and concentrated to a particular zone to draw any significant conclusions about the pattern of U concentration distribution in the region. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We agree with the reviewer. We can only draw conclusions about the pattern of U concentration within and immediately surrounding Chintamani village (the zone of this study). In the manuscript, we have not drawn any conclusions about the pattern of U concentration in the Eastern Karnataka region. The determination of elemental composition and its impact on the actual objective of the study is not well defined. AUTHOR RESPONSE : For each borewell water sample, we calculated correlation coefficients between the absolute and relative elemental compositions of each element and the uranium concentration. This was done in order to determine if uranium concentrations are correlated with those of other elements, suggesting co-occurrence or common geochemical behavior. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. In Table 2, we have provided correlation coefficients for both the absolute concentrations and relative % of every element observed, compared to uranium concentration. We observed no strong, statistically significant correlation coefficients for any element. We only observed weak correlations between U and K/Mg. Nevertheless, we have made the raw data available to the research community in Dataset S2, for other groups to analyze. Since the authors have mentioned that nitrate based fertilizers are responsible for solubilizing U from bed-rocks, a correlation between the N content of the samples and the U content can be discussed briefly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : No significant correlation was observed between nitrogen and uranium concentrations, in either absolute (r = –0.10, p = 0.75) or relative (r = 0.06, p = 0.85) terms. This suggests that nitrate fertilizers are unlikely to play a role in mobilizing uranium from bedrock in Chintamani village. This is now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the ‘ Chintamani groundwater datasets ’ section. The authors can specifiy how many samples from each borewell have been analyzed and provide the mean U concentration for each borewell along with respective SD. AUTHOR RESPONSE : As we have estimated uranium concentration using ICP-MS, which has a low margin of error (1-3%), only one sample per borewell was required. Furthermore, due to funding constraints, we were only able to conduct a finite number of measurements. Measuring uranium concentration repeatedly for a single well would decrease the total number of wells sampled. In Table 1 , we have provided the mean/SD of uranium concentrations across all borewells in Chintamani village. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Misra N. Peer Review Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r399030) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-399030 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 O. Omokpariola D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 May 2025 | for Version 2 Daniel O. Omokpariola , Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 O. Omokpariola D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region. ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology; Remote Sensing; Atmospheric and Water chemistry; Risk assessment and Project Management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan, Dear Authors, Please find the attached work and review them for further modification AUTHOR RESPONSE : We thank the reviewer for his expert comments, and have addressed all the concerns raised below. 1. Scope and Novelty a. The study is confirmatory and does not clearly articulate what new insights it offers beyond previous surveys. b. The authors should clarify: i. Why this specific location was chosen. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The site selection was based on accessibility and its proximity to our university. We have now mentioned this in the Introduction section of the manuscript. ii. Whether the data updates or expands on previous findings. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The data confirms and expands on previous findings due to our larger sample size (n=12), spatial groundwater uranium map withing Chintamai village (Figure 1), and the use of a more rigorous method (ICP-MS) to quantify groundwater concentrations. iii. How this dataset can inform remediation or policy decisions. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The raw data along with our kernel density estimate (Figure 1) of groundwater uranium concentrations divides Chintamani village into groundwater zones possessing different groundwater uranium concentrations. Borewells and areas possessing higher groundwater uranium concentrations may be assigned a higher priority for remediation. This is now mentioned in the conclusion section. “ These datasets along with our kernel density estimate of groundwater uranium distributions (FIgure 1B) could potentially be used as resources for prioritizing guiding remediation efforts by displaying borewells and areas possessing the highest uranium concentrations. “ 2. Scientific Context a. The introduction should include: i. A clearer rationale for repeating uranium measurements in this region . AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have elaborated on our rationale in the Introduction (paragraph 5). ii. A brief overview of potential exposure pathways (e.g., drinking water, food chain). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined uranium exposure routes in the Introduction (paragraph 3 and 4). Introduction paragraph 3: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage [9]. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants [10] and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Introduction paragraph 4: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form [11]. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes [12], minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Instead, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. iii. A summary of known health risks from uranium exposure (e.g., nephrotoxicity, reproductive effects). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have outlined the health risks associated with uranium exposure in the Introduction (paragraph 5). Introduction paragraph 5: Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity [14 , 15], with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans [16]. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion [16]. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development [17], reproductive and developmental toxicity [18]. 3. Interpretation of Results a. The conclusion is too brief and lacks interpretation. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have expanded the conclusion section to discuss the scope, novelty, and utility of our data. b. The authors should describe the spatial distribution of uranium (e.g., “localized in the NW region”). AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a kernel density estimate of the groundwater uranium concentrations in and around Chintamani village (Figure 1B) that quantifies the spatial distribution of uranium. c. Discuss whether the observed concentrations exceed WHO or Indian drinking water standards. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have discussed this in the Conclusion section (paragraph 1): Conclusion paragraph 1: According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations [ 9 ] and Atomic Energy Regulatory board (AERB) recommendations, the uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) and ≤60 ppb (0.06 ppm) respectively to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm and 97 wells possessed uranium concentrations with >,0.06 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. d. Highlight any environmental or public health implications. AUTHOR RESPONSE : Currently, this study does not report the environmental or public health effects of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village. We believe that further environmental / patient data from Chintamani village needs to be collected before commenting on these issues. We have mentioned this in the Conclusion (paragraph 4) Conclusion paragraph 4: Further work is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. 4. Methodological Clarifications a. The “Sample collection” section should include: i. GPS coordinates of all borewells (only partially included in Table 1). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Latitudes and longitudes for all 12 samples are included in Table 1. ii. Clarification on how borewells were selected (random, purposive, based on prior data?). AUTHOR RESPONSE : Borewells were initially randomly selected across the area in and around Chintamani village. Further samples were collected from the area around the borewell possessing the highest uranium concentration (Borewell 1). This has now been mentioned in the Introduction (paragraph 5) and Datasets section (paragraph 1). Introduction paragraph 5: “In this data note, we report data obtained from five randomly selected borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India. Subsequently, seven additional borewells were selected in the vicinity of the borewell exhibiting the highest uranium concentration among the initial five. “ Datasets paragraph 1: Groundwater from 12 borewells in Chintamani village, Chikkaballapura District, Karnataka, India were sampled from August 2024 to December 2024. Initially, we collected groundwater samples from borewells 1-5 that were evenly distributed around the geographical area of Chintamani village. Groundwater from borewell 1 displayed the highest uranium con- centration from this cohort (0.771 ppm U), leading us to sample groundwater from more borewells around borewell 1 in the northwestern region of Chintamani village. iii. The use of “t.test()” in the text should be corrected or explained more clearly. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ 5. Data Presentation a. The tables are comprehensive but dense. Author response provided under query 5d: b. Consider summarizing key findings in a visual format (e.g., heatmap, scatter plot). Author response provided under query 5d: c. Highlight borewells that exceed safety thresholds. AUTHOR RESPONSE : 10 of the 12 borewells possessed uranium concentrations exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation ≤0.03 ppm U). 9 of 12 borewells exceeded the atomic energy regulatory board (AERB) recommendation of (≤0.06 ppm U). We have highlighted these borewells in Table 1 (in bold and underlined font). To avoid visual clutter, we have only highlighted these wells in Table 1 and not in Figure 1A or 1B. d. A spatial map showing uranium concentration gradients would enhance clarity. AUTHOR RESPONSE for 5a, 5b, and 5d : We agree that the Tables 1 and 2 are very information dense. Our key findings are reported in Table 1 (groundwater uranium concentration for each borewell). We have now depicted this data in a visual format. We have added a local kernel density estimate (KDE) smoothing to predict area-wide uranium concentrations. This data is provided in Figure 1B. 6. Language and Style Minor grammatical and typographical issues should be corrected: Example: “Forevery” → “For every” AUTHOR RESPONSE : All instances of “forevery” have been changed to “for every” in the manuscript. Example: “hot-air ovenat” → “hot-air oven at” AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected this statement in the Methods subsection “Total dissolved solids (TDS) quantification”. It now reads: For every borewell sample, 1 L of water was dried in a hot-air oven at 80◦C in a clean Borosil ® borosilicate 1L glass beaker until only the salt residue remained. “ Example: “t.test()” → should be formatted correctly or described in plain language. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have corrected t.test() to t.test and also provided a short explanation in the Methods subsection “Data representation and statistical analyses”. An explanation of the t.test function is provided in the same subsection, immediately before t.test is mentioned. “The Welch 2-sample T-test (one-tailed) was used to determine whether there existed a statistically significant difference between uranyl concentrations in different spatial locations in Chintamani village (Figure 1). This was performed using the function t.test. “ Further Suggestions To enhance the manuscript’s scientific value and clarity: a. Expand the conclusion to include: b. A summary of spatial trends. AUTHOR RESPONSE : The conclusion (paragraph 1) now contains a summary of spatial trends. c. Implications for public health or groundwater management. d. Recommendations for future research or monitoring. AUTHOR RESPONSE to c/d : The conclusion (paragraph 4) now touches upon this issue. Further work is required before making public health recommendations. e. Add a brief section on limitations: f. Small sample size (12 borewells). g. Lack of temporal data (single sampling period). h. No direct health or exposure assessment. AUTHOR RESPONSE to e/f/g/h: We have addressed these limitations in the conclusion, paragraphs 4 and 5: Conclusion (paragraph 4): Our study provides greater insights into groundwater uranium concentrations in Chintamani village, but is nevertheless limited by our larger but still modest sample size (n=12) and lack of temporal data. Conclusion (paragraph 5): Further work, such as direct health or exposure assessments, is required to determine the environmental and public health effect of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village and its surroundings. Include a visual summary (e.g., map or infographic) to improve accessibility. AUTHOR RESPONSE : We have provided a visual summary in Figure 1B. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern O. Omokpariola D. Peer Review Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182340.r383555) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v2#referee-response-383555 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Owonikoko W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Wasiu Mathew Owonikoko , Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Owonikoko W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is is widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purpose? Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes? 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 03 Jun 2025 Deepesh Nagarajan, The work titled “The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India” assessed the groundwater abundance of uranium in Chintamani village in India. The study is well-written with very minimal error and data well analyzed and interpreted. The comments of the reviewer, resolved along minor and major lines, are as stated below AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments, and have addressed all his comments below. Minor comment Under “Sample collection” in “Material and method” section, the coordinates/GPS location of the site should be provided AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have provided the coordinates (latitude / longitude) for every sample in Table 1. We have now referred to Table in the sample collection section. “ Table 1 lists the latitude, longitude, and date of collection for every sample. ” “t.test()” in the second sentence of the first line in page 7 should be written correctly and the bracket filled or removed AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have removed the () in t.test. The sentence now reads: “ This was performed using the function t.test ” The conclusion should be beefed up to include information on the observed nature of the distribution of uranium in the village. i.e The distribution is of uranium in the village should be properly described. Is it widespread, low or high with the possible and attendant environmental and systemic implications, authors should state. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and have added the following material to the conclusion , discussing the distribution and systemic health effects of uranium: Uranyl concentrations ranged from 0.018 ppm (borewell 2) to 8.64 ppm (borewell 8). According to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations , uranium concentration in drinking water should remain ≤30 ppb (0.03 ppm) to minimize health risks. 10 out of the 12 borewells sampled possessed uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm, indicating cause for concern. Uranium concentrations >0.03 ppm were observed both in the northwest region (borewells 1,6-12) as well as outside (borewells 4,5), indicating a wide distribution across the water table of Chintamani village. Borewell 8 possessed 8.64 ppm uranium, a concentration 288× greater than the WHO recommended maximum. Nephrotoxicity , bone function impairments , developmental and reproductive toxicity are known adverse health effects associated with chronic uranium exposure. It is therefore worth studying the prevalence of such health effects in the residents of Chintamani village. Authors agreed that groundwater uranium concentration had been reported in India but did not impress why such investigation is being repeated within the same Country. Is the extant data now old, in a different area from the location of the last report or for merely confirmatory purposes? AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. R. Srinivasan et al. (reference 19) previously reported high uranium concentrations in groundwater in parts of eastern Karnataka (a state in India). Their study was broad in scope, reporting uranium concentrations from 73 separate villages in the state. Due to the broad scope, only 1-2 samples per village were collected. The authors did not report the exact location of sample collection for every village. Our study is narrower in scope, as we survey the spatial distribution of groundwater uranium concentration in a single village (Chintamani). We show that uranium concentrations in groundwater can greatly vary even within the water table of a single village. R. Srinivasan et al. reported uranium concentrations of 5267 ± 6 ug/g and 5913 ± 6 uranium from 2 borewells sampled in Chintamani. Here, we show a far greater variation in uranium concentrations, ranging from 0.018 ppm to 8.64 ppm (mean = 1.39 ±2.55 ppm), from the 12 borewells we sampled in Chintamani. Our two studies therefore have different scopes and complement each other. This has now been mentioned in the Conclusion section. Major comment The audience of this journal may consider the scope of the study limited. Authors, in the introduction section, agreed that the study is confirmatory; implying that the observation in this study is not new and has been earlier reported. As an advancement of previous report, it will be expected that authors add more information that answer vital questions such as: 1. What is/are the possible exposure pathways to ground water uranium among humans and animals. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for raising an important point. As Chintamani is an agricultural village, we believe it’s pertinent to discuss uranium uptake in plants in addition to animals and humans. We have now discussed these issues in the introduction section. 2. What is the health risk associated with the exposure to uranium particularly via the gastrointestinal and dermal routes ? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Oral consumption of uranium leads to nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are now discussed in the introduction section. 3. What is the systemic toxicological implication of the exposure to uranium? AUTHOR RESPONSE: Oral consumption of uranium-contaminated groundwater leads to systemic toxicological effects: nephrotoxicity, inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. These points are discussed in the introduction section alongside health risks associated with oral consumption (previous comment). AUTHOR RESPONSE: The relevant excerpt for the introduction section covering Major comment points 1-3 is provided below: Uranium adversely affects crops grown on soil irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Uranium’s phytotoxic effects include inhibition of photosynthesis, inhibition of plant growth, protein and lipid membrane oxidation, overproduction of reactive oxygen species, and DNA breakage. Uranium primarily accumulates in root systems, with negligible amounts found in aerial parts of plants and is therefore a greater concern for root and tuber crops. Dermal exposure results in minimal toxicity, particularly if Uranium is in an insoluble form. Uranium in groundwater is typically present as sparingly soluble uranyl carbonate complexes, minimizing the risk of absorption through the dermal route. Insteal, oral consumption of uranium through drinking untreated uranium-contaminated groundwater is of more concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum uranium concentration of 30 ppb in drinking water to minimize health risks. Although uranium is weakly radioactive, its primary health risk stems from its chemical toxicity rather than its radioactivity. Chronic exposure to uranium-contaminated water is associated with nephrotoxicity , with adverse renal effects reported in both laboratory animals and humans. Uranium excretion in urine is correlated with phosphate and calcium excretion. Other adverse effects include inhibition of bone function and development, reproductive and developmental toxicity. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Environmental Physiology and Toxicology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. AUTHOR RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his meticulous feedback, and we hope to have addressed all the concerns raised in this response. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Owonikoko WM. Peer Review Report For: The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village, Karnataka, India [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :321 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178738.r376222) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v1#referee-response-376222 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "The distribution of groundwater uranium in...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Rampur S et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321", templates : { twitter : "The distribution of groundwater uranium in Chintamani village,.... Rampur S et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-321/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/162525/185995") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "185995"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "400902": 0, "400903": 0, "388743": 0, "400900": 0, "400901": 0, "409986": 0, "400898": 0, "400899": 0, "409984": 0, "409985": 0, "400897": 0, "388749": 0, "388748": 0, "407692": 0, "388751": 0, "388750": 0, "407690": 12, "388745": 0, "400906": 0, "407691": 0, "388744": 0, "388747": 0, "400904": 0, "388746": 0, "400905": 0, "376213": 0, "376215": 0, "376214": 0, "388752": 0, "376221": 0, "376220": 0, "376222": 39, "376217": 0, "376216": 0, "376219": 0, "376218": 0, "399030": 14, "399031": 0, "399046": 0, "383557": 0, "399047": 0, "383556": 0, "383559": 0, "383558": 0, "383555": 26, "387020": 0, "383564": 0, "399052": 0, "399053": 0, "399050": 0, "383561": 0, "399051": 0, "383560": 0, "399048": 0, "383563": 0, "399049": 0, "383562": 0, "387028": 0, "387030": 0, "387036": 0, "387039": 0, "387038": 0, "387041": 0, "387040": 0, "408416": 0, "387042": 0, "372975": 0, "372981": 0, "372980": 0, "372983": 0, "372982": 0, "372977": 0, "372976": 0, "372979": 0, "372978": 0, "409982": 0, "409983": 0, "409980": 0, "409981": 0, "409978": 0, "386297": 0, "409979": 0, "372984": 0, "409977": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "7be7fea6-74b2-4ae5-9888-97e684a694e1"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });