First Occurrence of Willhendersonite in the Lessini Mounts, Northern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Even though the paper discusses an interesting topic, there are major problems that need to be addressed.
- "Willhendersonite from Terni was chemically analyzed by [1]". Mention the authors of the reference (Example: Adam[1])
- The paper presents no major findings. I do not think it is enough just to mention that they found a specific mineral in a specific location. Why is your finding significant. What benefit is there from this finding.
- The paper lacks a clear objective. It almost feels like reading a newspaper article mentioning that something was found in a spot without telling us why is it important to know this.
- Why is this research useful?
- The experimental work conducted is not enough. More analysis is needed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Even though the paper discusses an interesting topic, there are major problems that need to be addressed.
Response 1: we thank the reviewer for the positive comment and for the useful indications aimed at improving the manuscript.
Point 2: "Willhendersonite from Terni was chemically analyzed by [1]". Mention the authors of the reference (Example: Adam[1])
Response 2: We apologize for the inaccuracy. All references of this type have been modified as suggested.
Points 3 and 4: The paper presents no major findings. I do not think it is enough just to mention that they found a specific mineral in a specific location. Why is your finding significant. What benefit is there from this finding. The paper lacks a clear objective. It almost feels like reading a newspaper article mentioning that something was found in a spot without telling us why is it important to know this.
Response 3 and 4: We are grateful to the reviewer for allowing us to further highlight this important point.
We do not think that this article is just a mere report of the presence of a specific mineral in a certain location. We agree with the reviewer that the new data presented are not such as to complete the knowledge on this zeolite, but the quantities and sizes of the crystals studied did not allow to do more. Due to the difficulty in finding willhendersonite crystals, we think that presenting any new data on a rare mineral is still a significant contribution. So, in the revised manuscript further data relating to the cell parameters were inserted and compared with those of the literature. Furthermore, the section pertaining to the chemical composition data has been rewritten, highlighting a more significant variability than what has been known so far.
We also rewrote several parts of the text, trying to explain the objectives of the work and their importance.
Point 5: Why is this research useful?
Response 5: We believe that having more information of a structural and compositional nature on such a rare mineral is an important contribution both in terms of pure research and for all scientists who in some way may interact with this type of zeolite.
Point 6: The experimental work conducted is not enough. More analysis is needed.
Response 6: We share the reviewer's observation. Unfortunately, the quantities and sizes of the crystals did not allow for the collection of greater quantities of analytical data. However, in the revised manuscript further data relating to the cell parameters calculations were inserted and compared with those of the literature, and figures and tables have been improved and added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The work presented for review is a very simple description of the occurrence of the relatively rare zeolite willhendersonite. In the paper, the authors do not present new data extending our chemical and structural understanding of willhendersonite, apart from confirming the occurrence of this phase in Lessini Mounts (Veneto Volcanic Province, Northern Italy). In my opinion, such work should be published in a mineralogical journal, and not in a journal that publishes data on crystals / phases with a crystalline structure /, most of which are grown under laboratory conditions. I find the work submitted for review not very interesting for the majority of the readers of the Crystals, although the decision to accept such a publication for publication is left to the editors.
The article is written in understandable English, but due to the unambitious aim of the work and the small amount of analytical data, I would expect a better preparation of the presented data. below I present my opinions indicating the parts of the manuscript that need to be supplemented and corrected.
# abstract - acronym (EMP) should be replaced with "EPMA" which is better recognized in the mineralogical community.
# used acronyms without explanation "CHA code" "E%". When used for the first time, the full terms should be given and the acronym used in the remainder of the work in brackets.
# "polychromatic substrate" imprecise description
# figure 2 - unprofessional preparation of graphics for printing / no scale in figure a, no description of objects in the photos, figure captions a and b should be in the photos and not below them.
# because microprobe analyzes were performed, it is necessary to include in the work BSE images that show the textural relationships of willhendersonite to other minerals occurring in the mineral association
# co znaczy XRPD pattern?
# carelessly developed willhendersonite diffractogram. In Fig. 3, only selected reflections are marked, in a similar way they are also described in the text. Please, elaborate the result of the experiment more carefully. In the figure, please describe all the strongest reflections of willhendersonite, and the reflections of possible admixtures. It is a very probable situation because the described minerals are characterized by small grain sizes (see Fig. 2).
# In your paper, please include an additional table with all the reflections present on the diffractogram. The reflexes should be indexed (hkl values) and compared with willhendersonite data from other sources.
# please calculate the unit cell parameters (from XRD data) for the examined willhendersonite
# "tetrahedral content" - awkward expression
# fig 4 - no information about the source of the chemical analyzes used to construct the diagram.
# the discussions on the genesis of willhendersonite are unjustified because the paper does not provide information (chemical data, petrographic data) about other co-occurring phases.
Widh the best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The work presented for review is a very simple description of the occurrence of the relatively rare zeolite willhendersonite. In the paper, the authors do not present new data extending our chemical and structural understanding of willhendersonite, apart from confirming the occurrence of this phase in Lessini Mounts (Veneto Volcanic Province, Northern Italy).
Response 1: First of all, we wish to thank the Reviewer#2 for the work done and for taking time to improve the manuscript.
Point 2: In my opinion, such work should be published in a mineralogical journal, and not in a journal that publishes data on crystals / phases with a crystalline structure /, most of which are grown under laboratory conditions. I find the work submitted for review not very interesting for the majority of the readers of the Crystals, although the decision to accept such a publication for publication is left to the editors.
Response 2: Yes, what the Reviewer#2 says about Crystals’ aims is certainly right. However, the present manuscript is intended for the Special Issue “Zeolites”, which includes original contributions in topics related to zeolites, covering aspects ranging from their preparation, their characterization, and application in different areas. This work, which has been submitted according to the Special Issue Editors (Magdalena Krol and Paulina Florek), aims to be a contribution to the aspect of a mineralogical characterization of a relatively rare natural zeolite.
Point 3: The article is written in understandable English, but due to the unambitious aim of the work and the small amount of analytical data, I would expect a better preparation of the presented data. below I present my opinions indicating the parts of the manuscript that need to be supplemented and corrected.
Response 3: We regret not being clear and effective in the presentation of the work. We are very grateful to the reviewer for his suggestions for improving the article.
Point 4: abstract - acronym (EMP) should be replaced with "EPMA" which is better recognized in the mineralogical community.
Response 4: The acronym (EMP) has been replaced with (EPMA).
Point 5: used acronyms without explanation "CHA code" "E%". When used for the first time, the full terms should be given and the acronym used in the remainder of the work in brackets.
Response 5: Ok, all acronyms used for the first time have been explained giving the relative full terms in brackets.
Point 6: "polychromatic substrate" imprecise description.
Response 6: Ok, this sentence has been completely rewritten highlighting the presence, in the substrate, of clayey minerals characterized by different colors.
Point 7: figure 2 - unprofessional preparation of graphics for printing / no scale in figure a, no description of objects in the photos, figure captions a and b should be in the photos and not below them.
Response 7: We apologize for the unprofessional work done in preparing this figure. We add the graphic scale in figure a, we complete the description of the objects in the photos and insert labels “a” and “b” in the photos. We hope that the new figure 2 is now of good scientific quality.
Point 8: because microprobe analyzes were performed, it is necessary to include in the work BSE images that show the textural relationships of willhendersonite to other minerals occurring in the mineral association.
Response 8: Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to have another round to the microprobe to acquire BSE images of the investigated samples. Anyway, the separated and epoxy-fixed crystals in the sections were carefully selected and thoroughly cleaned with ultrasonic bath, in order to analyze truly pure crystals. The XRD pattern confirmed the absence of other species and / or impurities.
Point 9: co znaczy XRPD pattern?
Response 9: We are sorry, but we did not understand what this point asks.
Point 10: carelessly developed willhendersonite diffractogram. In Fig. 3, only selected reflections are marked, in a similar way they are also described in the text. Please, elaborate the result of the experiment more carefully. In the figure, please describe all the strongest reflections of willhendersonite, and the reflections of possible admixtures. It is a very probable situation because the described minerals are characterized by small grain sizes (see Fig. 2).
Response 10: the reviewer is right, and we thank him/her for his suggestions. The diffractograms of Fig. 3 has been improved. All diffraction peaks were resolved and indexed to a triclinic cell with, and unit cell parameters were calculated. The diffractogram perfectly fits that of the holotype willhendersonite and does not show other peaks relating to impurities or admixtures, testifying to the purity of the analyzed crystals.
Point 11: In your paper, please include an additional table with all the reflections present on the diffractogram. The reflexes should be indexed (hkl values) and compared with willhendersonite data from other sources.
Response 11: Yes, an additional table (new Table 1) with all the reflections present on the diffractogram and their hkl values has been included in the revised text.
Point 12: please calculate the unit cell parameters (from XRD data) for the examined willhendersonite.
Response 12: Yes, unit-cell parameters from XRD data have been calculated and explained in the main text. In addition, an additional table new (Table 2) has also been added in the main text, with a comparison between the calculated cell parameters and those from literature.
Point 13: "tetrahedral content" - awkward expression
Response 13: Ok, this expression has been modified.
Point 14: fig 4 - no information about the source of the chemical analyzes used to construct the diagram.
Response 14: The Figure 4 has been modified, and for all the chemical data used in the diagram the bibliographic source has been inserted in a graphic legend.
Point 15: the discussions on the genesis of willhendersonite are unjustified because the paper does not provide information (chemical data, petrographic data) about other co-occurring phases.
Response 15: Ok, the final part of the discussion has been modified and rewritten providing the information necessary to support the indications on the possible genetic mechanisms of these zeolites. At the same time, these conclusions were also revised, trying to avoid excessive interpretations.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is acceptable.
