Seasonal Variations of Dissolved Iron Concentration in Active Layer and Rivers in Permafrost Areas, Russian Far East
, Muneoki Yoh 2, Takayuki Shiraiwa 3, Takeo Onishi 4, Vladimir Shesterkin 5 and Vladimir Kim 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line1 Abstract: In my opinion an abstract should have quantitative results. This abstract is “this is what we did like a story – no exciting results to stimulate a reader want to read the article.
Line 6: “high production” - 0.5 ppm or 5 ppm or 50 ppm or 500 ppm?
Line 7: “highest annual conc” 0.5 ppm or 100 pm, or?
Line 8: ….decreased to 1 ppm in rivers and 200 ppm in soil pore water? (would have values like around line 166.)
Line 10: reducing Eh = ?
Line 10-11 increased to extreme … 2000 ppm? (It is actually 7ppm max)
Line 13: “hot spots” 5000 ppm?
Line 28: are brackish waters reducing?
Line 51: line of type looks bold.
Line 52: what is “active layer”?
Line 54: dFe(II)? Guess dFe can be one or other or both together.
Line 66: If a major interest was iron reduction why wasn’t the Eh measured on site? It is an easy task, like pH. Probably water samples could have been sealed on site and Eh measured in the lab.
Line 83: is this the Sofron watershed vegetation?
Line 93: Fig 1 b. All soil samples came from the black triangle?
Line 117 0 C
Line 134 No nitric acid added to water samples?
Line 156 How redox measured? Wasn't.
Line 159-160 +\-, uncertainties? Data presentation implies +/- 0.0X ppm.
Line 248 below Figure 7. Square and circle colors very faint.
Line 292 Interesting.
Been nice to have Eh measurements.
Author Response
Thank you very much for providing important comments. We are thankful for the time and energy you expended. I have attached pdf file that you can see our response. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research presented in the paper shows new data on the transport of Fe and DOC from the catchment areas of boreal rivers. I recommend the article for publication but only after the authors have addressed the following issues:
- The Abstract (lines 1-14) and the aim of the study (lines 65-71) should mention the research on DOC.
- I have some objections regarding methods – the water samples are not conserved after collection (metals may be absorbed by the walls of the vessel). Is it not possible that it affected the results of the study? How did the authors test the accuracy of the applied research method?
- Please give information on the applied standard solutions for the determination of Fe and DOC.
- Points 3.3 and 4.1: Was not the location of the study sites significant for the rate of ground thawing and drying (especially southern vs. northern exposure, and eastern vs. western exposure)?
- The discussion should be more precise that points 4.1. and 4.2 certain fragments explain the interesting results of the study mentioned in the lines 175-178
- There is no summary.
Author Response
Thank you very much for providing important comments. We are thankful for the time and energy you expended. I have attached pdf file that you can see our response. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Generally, the manuscript is well written. It has scientific sound, but I consider that some conclusions are necessary.
Author Response
Thank you very much for providing important comments. We are thankful for the time and energy you expended. I have attached pdf file that you can see our response. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
