Potential Toxic Impacts of Hg Migration in the Disjointed Hyporheic Zone in the Gold Mining Area Experiencing River Water Level Changes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors, my suggestions follow on from the previous review of this manuscript.
This version of the manuscript is incomparably clearer than the previous one.
Please mark all changes in the text.
Read the manuscript in detail once and correct typographical errors such as dots at the end of sentences, upper and lower case letters, citations, e.g. line 103.
ABSTRACT
Line 54: „volatile Hg“ – again
Previous Comment:
Line 22: specify which mine it is, name.
Answer: Xiaoqinling gold belt is a mineral belt, without a specific mine name.
New comment: Not corrected. It is necessary to define the name of the mine, the area where it is located. So specify which gold mine it is.
Previous Comment:
Lines 28-29: „residual state, strong organic state and Humic acid state“ - The term "residual state" runs through the manuscript - I'm not sure what it means, give the chemical formula. In lines 154-155 you state that it is in mineral lattice. Write more clearly.
NO REPLIES!
Previous Comment:
Lines 31-32: „extreme ecological hazard threshold (320)“ - the number in parentheses appears to be a citation of literature, perhaps it is better to write: which is 320 or which has a value of 320.
NO REPLIES!
The introduction has been completely reorganized, making it now easier to read.
Previously chapter 2, now chapter 3 is also updated making it clear.
Previous Comment:
DISCUSSION
Strengthen the explanations, especially regarding the mentioned possible solution "river channels should be rectified". Is this really a solution? What about the remediation of the polluted area?
I HAVE NOT OBSERVED ANY CHANGES IN THE CORRECTED VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT
Previous Comment:
Supplement the conclusions in accordance with the changes in the manuscript.
I HAVE NOT OBSERVED ANY CHANGES IN THE CORRECTED VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT
Author Response
We are very grateful to the relevant experts for revising the article in spite of their busy schedule and putting forward valuable opinions. The author has earnestly completed the revision work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The topic raised is worth attention . The article is interesting but requires text and language corrections. The manuscript should be put in order, i.e.:
- rewrite the initial sentence into abstract – line 53,
- reduce the number of keywords,
- case: (line 132, 146, 162, 166, 207, 277)
- specify the formulation “from72 abandoned 155 ancient mines, and production from 1980 to 2003 reached 56.25”(line 155),
- inconsistent sentence: “The main controlling factor of…. (line 179-182), repeated “respectively mg/kg” (line 391),
- punctuation (line 193-201 and 358),
- remove unnecessary paragraphs and deletions,
- unify the numbering of chapters,
- improve the numbering of figures and tables and format the tables so that the column descriptions are legible,
- table 3 is unnecessary, it is enough to describe in the text the concentration value in summer and winter,
- the correct unit of mass is kg, not Kg (in many places in the text, in Table 4 and Table 5).
Author Response
We are very grateful to the relevant experts for revising the article in spite of their busy schedule and putting forward valuable opinions. The author has earnestly completed the revision work.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
My final decision is to accept the manuscript in its current form.
Author Response
a response to the reviewer’s comments
Thanks to the expert hard guidance, the article has been improved, mainly in two aspects:
(1)Are the results clearly presented?
Answer:Results show the improvement: because the water quality monitoring was not detected, the editorial department suggested that the deletion, so the author deleted 4.1 related content.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?Can be improved.
(2)Answer:Put forward more comprehensive governance recommendations, revised as”The following measures can be taken: (1) to control the sources of heavy metals at source， (2) to reduce the ecological risks of heavy metals to groundwater by physical chemistry, bioremediation and pesticide control in soil as soon as possible on the basis of river regulation.”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with the presence of Hg in the hyporheic zone.
Despite of the title: "Study the transport of volatile Hg and the ecological risk in the 2 disjointed hyporheic zone in the gold mining area" no transport model is presented. The manuscript, whose aim is not stated at all, consists only in the presentation of field measurements, whose details and methods . are not given.
The manuscript lacks of novelty and its (limited) validity is rather that of a technical report. The authors could take into consideration the possibility of resubmit it as such, after having improved it.
As a scientific article is not acceptable for the publication on Water.
Reviewer 2 Report
water-1853888
Study the transport of volatile Hg and the ecological risk in the disjointed hyporheic zone in the gold mining area
Rui-ping Liu , Fei Liu , Jian-gang Jiao * , You-ning Xu , Ying Dong , El-Wardany RM , Xin-she Zhang *
The article deals with important environmental risk issues related to the release of mercury into groundwater and surface waters. The article requires improvement primarily in the context of the clarity of the message, which is now at an unacceptable level.
Information on the number of samples, how they are collected, extracted and analyzed is not sufficient. The citation indicating the methods used is insufficient, there must also be a description of the procedures used. There is no information about the devices and statistical programs used.
The abstract is unclear and requires redrafting to better reflect the content of the article.
There are too many keywords and their informative value is insufficient.
Subchapter 3.2., Figure 3 and other figures - it is necessary to explain in the text what the figure shows, how many measurements and what are listed on it.
line 59, 65 - incorrect citation. Necessary spaces before the parentheses with quotations.
Line 128 – what is T i r and E i r
Line 132 – citation is necessery
Tables 3 and 4 are unreadable and must be corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, the topic of the manuscript is interesting, the examination of the potential toxic impact of mercury due to migration from the area of gold mines. However, the title of the manuscript and the content of the manuscript are in complete contradiction, I would say that the topic is completely missed. That is, either the title of the manuscript or the content of the manuscript should be changed. Furthermore, the manuscript is, I would say, rather confused and unclearly written in all its parts, especially the introduction and chapter 2. There are sentences that do not have dots at the end, there are many sentences with unnecessary dots, sentences with a lower case initial letter, unclear sentences. All of the above contributed to the confusion of the manuscript, so I will reject the manuscript in this form, and it can be considered later after major changes.
The detailed comments follow:
TITLE: The use of the term "transport of volatile mercury" in the title is not appropriate since the authors did not determine the concentration of volatile Hg in-situ, but measured the concentration, if I understood correctly, in sediment and water since they did not specify in Materials and methods. The connection to the title can only be found in lines 202-205, which is actually an assumption, not an experimental result. Therefore, the manuscript deals with the vertical migration of mercury in the soil, i.e. the hydrogeological layer by determining Hg at different depths.
ABSTRACT
Line 22: specify which mine it is, name.
Line 27: „in the surface layer“ - which surface layer? Soil or water?
Lines 28-29: „residual state, strong organic state and Humic acid state“ - The term "residual state" runs through the manuscript - I'm not sure what it means, give the chemical formula. In lines 154-155 you state that it is in mineral lattice. Write more clearly.
Lines 31-32: „extreme ecological hazard threshold (320)“ - the number in parentheses appears to be a citation of literature, perhaps it is better to write: which is 320 or which has a value of 320.
Line 32: „The risk is higher than that…“ – the risk of what ??? is higher than that…
INTRODUCTION
Focus on the migration of Hg, especially volatile Hg...that is, migration through the soil, depending on the conception of the manuscript.
The transition to a new paragraph (line 81) is not connected!
Lines 91-98: This part does not belong to the INTRODUCTION part, but to the description of the location, like Figure 1.
Finally, the introduction sounds unfinished, (line 108), what is the purpose of the paper (which may have been stated in lines 88-89).
SECTION 2
This section is so sparsely written that it is completely unclear.
What was sampled, soil, water?
What was analyzed?
On which instruments was Hg analyzed and how?
Describe all conducted experiments and methods in detail.
3. RESULTS
Lines 142-149: These are not the results, than the method of performing the experiment.
DISCUSSION
Strengthen the explanations, especially regarding the mentioned possible solution "river channels should be rectified". Is this really a solution? What about the remediation of the polluted area?
Page 12, line 8: „The largest, followed by tailings leaching type“ - unclear sentence.
Supplement the conclusions in accordance with the changes in the manuscript.
