Effects of Ammonium and COD on Fe and Mn Release from RBF Sediment Based on Column Experiment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work deals with a deeply felt topic in the field of aquifer contamination and is approached with a commendable attempt to combine hydrogeological, chemical, and biological studies in a multidisciplinary way. The work is therefore very interesting and well performed experimentally.
However, the authors should have discussed their results more thoroughly by describing the chemical, physico-chemical and biological results in a comparative way and giving greater prominence to the comparisons between them in addition to the literature review.
It was very difficult to proofread the work due to the lack of line numbering which is normally present in the manuscripts to be proofread.
The description of the results does not always appear exhaustive, in particular:
- The final sentence of paragraph 3.2 is not clear. What is meant by “control group”?
- What is meant by “leaching order”?
- In the description of the results in par. 3.2 and figure 3 the authors speak of a constant trend from a certain time onwards. They actually maintain a certain variability and the concentrations seem to separate with different values ​​at various depths.
In Paragraph 4.1 and in figure 5 the authors state that the concentration in NH4+ decreases but this is not understood from figure 5.
In chapter 4 - "Discussion" the authors discuss too marginally the experimental results obtained in the experimental column and refer to bibliographic data. It would be appropriate to devote more space to the illustration, discussion, and comparative analysis of one's own experimental results.
In addition to the bibliography already indicated by the authors, in order to offer further food for thought and discussion on the topics covered, the following articles, and related bibliography, are suggested:
1) Environs. Earth Sci., 71/4, 1791-1807. Doi 10.1007/s12665-013-2584-8
2) Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 11709-11805. Doi 10.1007/s11356-016-6371-4
3) Science of the Total Environment, 695, 133796, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133796
In addition to enriching the cases already reported in the introduction, they constitute further case studies from around the world, and offer points of discussion and comparison regarding: 1) the nitrogen cycle in relation to exchanges between the river and the aquifer; 2) redox processes controlling the distribution of Fe and Mn in soils and groundwater and the reaction rate with analysis of 2000 samples from alluvial aquifers in Central Italy; 3) comparative analysis through statistical treatment of data, relationship between surface water and groundwater, redox zoning and speciation of Fe and Mn in highly populated alluvial aquifers in Honduras.
Minor remarks:
Corresponding author asterisk appears on two authors.
In the Introduction the acronyms IRB and MRB are not defined.
Par. 2.1: “Sdement” it’s probably Sediment?
Par. 2.1 line 9: Is “70°C refrigeretor” correct?
Pag. 7 line 1: “Figure 4(c)” it’s probably Figure 3?
Par. 4.2 line 3: “magnesium” it’s probably manganese?
Fig. 6: is there an erasure of a scribble? Above the writing “Secondary minerals phase”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Title: Effects of ammonium and COD on Fe and Mn release from RBF sediment based on column experiment
Manuscript ID: water-2092218
Authors: Xuelian Xia, Yanguo Teng*, Yuanzheng Zhai*
Corresponding author: Yanguo Teng (Email: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn)
21-Dec-2022
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and great decision. After carefully reading the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and made detailed written explanations of the revision.
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response: After finishing the original manuscript, we invited experts from English-speaking country to polish the language of the manuscript. The proof of the polish is shown as the figure at the end of this file. After this revision, we polished the language again, hoping to meet the publishing requirements.
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Response: Thank you very much for your approval of our work. The results section has been improved by us according to your requirements.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work deals with a deeply felt topic in the field of aquifer contamination and is approached with a commendable attempt to combine hydrogeological, chemical, and biological studies in a multidisciplinary way. The work is therefore very interesting and well performed experimentally.
Response: Thank you very much for your approval of our work.
However, the authors should have discussed their results more thoroughly by describing the chemical, physico-chemical and biological results in a comparative way and giving greater prominence to the comparisons between them in addition to the literature review.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. We discussed the results more thoroughly in a comparative way, and giving greater prominence to the comparisons between chemical, physico-chemical and biological in addition to the literature review. See introduction in manuscript for new content.
It was very difficult to proofread the work due to the lack of line numbering which is normally present in the manuscripts to be proofread.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. We added the line numbering in the manuscript to be proofread.
The description of the results does not always appear exhaustive, in particular:
Response: Thank you for your reminding. Our original submission did have issues in description of the results. The manuscript has undergone a major revision according to your requirements. The other details have also been revised according to the comments, and the specific responses are as follows.
1.The final sentence of paragraph 3.2 is not clear. What is meant by “control group”?
Response: Thank you for your reminding. “Control group” refers to “ultrapure water group (column A)”. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 270 of the revised manuscript.
2.What is meant by “leaching order”?
Response: Thank you for your reminding. We have corrected “leaching order” to “leaching concentration order”. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 272 of the revised manuscript.
3.In the description of the results in par. 3.2 and figure 3 the authors speak of a constant trend from a certain time onwards. They actually maintain a certain variability and the concentrations seem to separate with different values ​​at various depths.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out. As suggested by the reviewer, we have adjusted and improved the explanation. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 228-231 of the revised manuscript.
4.In Paragraph 4.1 and in figure 5 the authors state that the concentration in NH4+ decreases but this is not understood from figure 5.
Response: Thank you for your reminding. As suggested by the reviewer, we have adjusted and improved the explanation. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 284-285 and 293-296 of the revised manuscript. The new contents are as follows.
“The ammonium concentration of the whole sediment column decreased first and then increased (Figure 4).”
“The increase of ammonium concentration may be due to the fact that the reaction in the sediment column tends to be stable in the later stage of the experiment, and the content of pollutants reacting with Fe and Mn oxides in the sediment becomes less.”
5.In chapter 4 – “Discussion” the authors discuss too marginally the experimental results obtained in the experimental column and refer to bibliographic data. It would be appropriate to devote more space to the illustration, discussion, and comparative analysis of one's own experimental results.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. We combed the In chapter 4 – “Discussion” in the manuscript and devoted more space to the illustration, discussion, and comparative analysis of our experimental results. See introduction in manuscript for new content.
6.In addition to the bibliography already indicated by the authors, in order to offer further food for thought and discussion on the topics covered, the following articles, and related bibliography, are suggested:
1) Environs. Earth Sci., 71/4, 1791-1807. Doi 10.1007/s12665-013-2584-8
2) Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 11709-11805. Doi 10.1007/s11356-016-6371-4
3) Science of the Total Environment, 695, 133796, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133796
Response: Adopted.
In addition to enriching the cases already reported in the introduction, they constitute further case studies from around the world, and offer points of discussion and comparison regarding: 1) the nitrogen cycle in relation to exchanges between the river and the aquifer; 2) redox processes controlling the distribution of Fe and Mn in soils and groundwater and the reaction rate with analysis of 2000 samples from alluvial aquifers in Central Italy; 3) comparative analysis through statistical treatment of data, relationship between surface water and groundwater, redox zoning and speciation of Fe and Mn in highly populated alluvial aquifers in Honduras.
Response: Adopted. In addition to enriching the cases already reported in the introduction, we provide in the introduction a discussion and comparison of further case studies from around the world. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 46-51 and 54-65 of the revised manuscript.
7.Minor remarks:
1) Corresponding author asterisk appears on two authors.
Response: Thank you for your reminding. We will adjust it according to the requirements of the journal.
2) In the Introduction the acronyms IRB and MRB are not defined.
Response: Adopted. The defined of the acronyms IRB and MRB are added to the introduction. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 72-73 of the revised manuscript.
3) Par. 2.1: “Sdement” it’s probably Sediment?
Response: Adopted.
4) Par. 2.1 line 9: Is “70 °C refrigerator” correct?
Response: Thank you for your reminding. We have changed “70 °C refrigerator” to “-70 °C refrigerator”. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 102 of the revised manuscript.
5) Pag. 7 line 1: “Figure 4c” it’s probably Figure 3?
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out.
6) Par. 4.2 line 3: “magnesium” it’s probably manganese?
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out.
7) Fig. 6: is there an erasure of a scribble? Above the writing “Secondary minerals phase”.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. We changed the scribble to “Secondary minerals phase”, and improved the original image representation to enhance the quality and readability of the image. The modified pictures are shown in Fig. 6.
Thank you for your warm and timely work earnestly. This will be very helpful for improving the manuscript and our future research. We hope that our responses and the revisions will be satisfactory, while we will be happy to work with you to resolve any remaining issues.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Yanguo Teng (on behalf of all authors)
Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See this in change the archive file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Title: Effects of ammonium and COD on Fe and Mn release from RBF sediment based on column experiment
Manuscript ID: water-2092218
Authors: Xuelian Xia, Yanguo Teng*, Yuanzheng Zhai*
Corresponding author: Yanguo Teng (Email: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn)
21-Dec-2022
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and great decision. After carefully reading the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and made detailed written explanations of the revision.
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response: After finishing the original manuscript, we invited experts from English-speaking country to polish the language of the manuscript. The proof of the polish is shown as the figure at the end of this file. After this revision, we polished the language again, hoping to meet the publishing requirements.
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Response: Thank you very much for your approval of our work. The results section has been improved by us according to your requirements.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1.-In introduction: Add, how the sulfate-reducing bacteria can indirectly reduce iron/manganese oxides.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. In the introduction, we add how sulfate-reducing bacteria indirectly reduce Fe/Mn oxides. The exact location of the revised text can be found in Line 74-77 of the revised manuscript. The new contents are as follows.
“In addition, sulfate-reducing bacteria can indirectly reduce Fe/Mn oxides, and sulfate-reducing bacteria can stimulate the reaction of SO42- in sediments with Fe/Mn minerals to form synthetic minerals such as Fe-S/Mn-S, which may also inhibit some Fe/Mn migration [21].”
2.- Page 2: Material and methods: 2.1 say: Sdement, the correct is: Sediment.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out.
3.Page 4: 2.3. Aqueous-phase análisis: Add reference for The Fe and Mn concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (Optima 8000, PerkinElmer). Determination of the Fe(II) concentration was performed by the 1,10-ophenanthroline method with a detection limit of 10 μg/L.
Response: Adopted.
4.- Page 5: Figure 2; In alls the figures say Colum, the correct is Column. Amply the figures.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. The modified pictures are shown in Fig.2.
5.- Page 7: Figure 3; In alls the figures say Colum, the correct is Column. Amply the figures.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. The modified pictures are shown in Fig.3.
6.- In the sections: 3.1. Changes of pH, DO and Eh, and 3.2. Changes of Fe and Mn: the authors handle a lot of data, and it is confusing and boring to read them in this way, the possibility of presenting them in tables and/or in a more specific way is suggested.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out. We presented the data of pH, DO, Eh, Fe and Mn in the form of tables in the supplementary material. See table S1 and able S2 for new content.
7.- Too for the section: 3.3. Response of microbial community.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding. We present the data of microbial communities in the form of tables in the supplementary materials. See table S3 for new contents.
8.- Unify: Ammonium or NH4+.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding.
9.- Change figure 5 to results, usually figures are not included in the discussion.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding.
10.- Change section 4.2. Fe and Mn release mechanism, before of discussion.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for your reminding.
11.- The conclusion will be more specific.
Response: Adopted.
12.- Amply the discussion.
Response: Adopted.
13.- Unify references.
Response: Adopted.
14.- Reference 8 say: Cupriavidus gilardii, the correct is Cupriavidus gilardii.
Response: Adopted. Thank you for pointing this out.
Thank you for your warm and timely work earnestly. This will be very helpful for improving the manuscript and our future research. We hope that our responses and the revisions will be satisfactory, while we will be happy to work with you to resolve any remaining issues.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Yanguo Teng (on behalf of all authors)
Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
your manuscript is well written. the structure of the manuscript meets the necessary requirements. The methodology of scientific research is clear. The discussion is also understandable.
The only remark to the Conclusions. The conclusions are written in an unclear manner and contain generally known information. Try to read them again carefully and rewrite them according to the purpose of your work.
With regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
Title: Effects of ammonium and COD on Fe and Mn release from RBF sediment based on column experiment
Manuscript ID: water-2092218
Authors: Xuelian Xia, Yanguo Teng*, Yuanzheng Zhai*
Corresponding author: Yanguo Teng (Email: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn)
21-Dec-2022
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and great decision. After carefully reading the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and made detailed written explanations of the revision.
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response: After finishing the original manuscript, we invited experts from English-speaking country to polish the language of the manuscript. The proof of the polish is shown as the figure at the end of this file. After this revision, we polished the language again, hoping to meet the publishing requirements.
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Response: Thank you very much for your approval of our work. The results section has been improved by us according to your requirements.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
your manuscript is well written. the structure of the manuscript meets the necessary requirements. The methodology of scientific research is clear. The discussion is also understandable.
Response: Thank you very much for your approval of our work.
The only remark to the Conclusions. The conclusions are written in an unclear manner and contain generally known information. Try to read them again carefully and rewrite them according to the purpose of your work.
With regards
Response: Our original submission did have many issues in writing. Thank you for this suggestion. The manuscript has undergone a major revision according to your requirements.
Thank you for your warm and timely work earnestly. This will be very helpful for improving the manuscript and our future research. We hope that our responses and the revisions will be satisfactory, while we will be happy to work with you to resolve any remaining issues.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Yanguo Teng (on behalf of all authors)
Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail: ygteng@bnu.edu.cn.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
