Mn(II) Sorption on Stream Sediments Sampled in Manganese Mining Area: Dynamics and Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 1. When introducing the rate of electrolytic Mn produciton by China, it is better to cite original papers or reports which gives the statistics. 

2. I suggesst the authors to present photograph of the sediments, before and after sorption experiments. This helps alot to the reader to get better idea about the sediments and their secifications. 

3. In the section introducing the funding information, there some extra words. '...Please add ...' should be removed.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the reviewer´s opinion, the work presented by the authors has a basis of interest to the scientific community in all matters relating to water decontamination processes which, in accordance with the objectives set out in the work, presents clear conclusions that the authors highlight, supported by the results of the research. From the introduction onwards, the entire work is supported by an adequate bibliographical source that reinforces the research. Furthermore, the structure of the article makes it easy to follow and understand the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is interesting and the authors have done a good job of doing a detailed analysis on the sorption of Mn (II) on mining sediments. However, there are some major changes required before further consideration. These include:

1. The authors mention nowhere in the text if experiments were performed in replicates (duplicate, triplicate etc.).
2. What were the controls used in the experiment? 
3. If replicates were used in the study, error bars (or measures of standard deviation) are missing from all figures (expect Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). 
4. In fig. 6, some of the error bars are missing upper and lower caps. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an excellent study in an important area which in itself is well researched as evident from the large number of references that have been cited. Nevertheless, in the context of the sedimentary basins, the research is important and deserves consideration of publication subject to the following minor comments being addressed.

1) line 35 - change "tone" to "ton"

2) The effect of the coexisting cations needs to be better explained in the text and also stated clearly in the conclusions.

3) the conclusions reflect the findings but I have struggled to find what's new based on what is already known in the cited references. This comment should be addressed in the paper before the conclusions section.

4) while the dosage rate is stated to have an effect on the sorption, the range of dosage rate within which the study is conducted needs to be clearly stated in the conclusions.

5)The number of references is excessive at 79. the authors can reduce it to below 40 easily by deleting many older references of the same kind.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing the changes suggested in the previous round of edits. The results now look much better. 

The following minor errors need to be addressed:

1. The x-axis of Fig 2 needs to be adjusted to prevent digits from running into the next major tick. Please offset the label markers appropriately.
2. Copy-editing inconsistencies like punctuation, spaces, minor english language edits.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx