Heavy Metals in Sediments of Subarctic Meromictic Lakes of the White Sea as Possible Tracers of Environmental Changes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

For comments please find the attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English needs improvement. 

Author Response

The authors' response are in file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents data that was collected in the field and as such, it provides new information. This is worth sharing. However, there are significant flaws with the paper and it should be reviewed: 

- The paper lacks clear aims. For this reason it is not clear whether or not they have been reached in the conclusions.

- All the sections (Abstract, Introduction, M&M...) have to be reorganized following a logical and consistent order.

- Be careful with the use of some terms. Many geological, mineralogical and geochemical terms are misused.

- You must include geological and geomorphological information of the study area in "study area" section. You discuss about the lithologic form but never describe the geological nature of the bedrock, or what rocks are outcropped in the area or the mineralogy of sediemnts. Without knowing this information your discusses do not make sense.

- The sampling and sample preparation procedures are confusingly and incompletely explained.

- in the M&M you report some analyzes (Eh, TOC, TC) but in the results these data are not described or partially described. It is necessary to add a summary table with all the characteristics of the samples (e.g., coordinates, depth, Eh, TOC, chemistry, etc.)

- In my opinion, having neither produced new mineralogy data, nor provided mineralogical-petrographic information of bibliography, many of the conclusions cannot be clearly supported and confirmed.

 

In attached, you can find specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The standard of English is typical of translating software: it is technically mostly correct but does not qualify as "standard" English. As such, it can be difficult to read. It requires a thorough review by a professional editor who can adjust the writing to standard English, rather than a computerised translation.  

Author Response

The authors' responses to Reviewer 2 are in the file attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

there is scope for improvement.

Author Response

Response is in file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

In my opinion, the authors have modified and improved thier manuscript following my comments and suggestions. However, I have already had some little suggestions:

- In the Figure 1 the scale is already missing. Plase add the scale in each satellite image and maps. In the central map of the figure 1, you did not report the location of site 4, 5, 6, and 7.

- There is a lot of typing errors (e.g., it is still present a cyrillic font at line 601), plase read the text very carefully.

- The geological background is still very inaccurate. Improper terms are used (e.g., what does "plagiogneys"?).

- The length of the manuscript is still very long. Try to simplify some sentences, so as to lighten and shorten the text.

 

Author Response

Response is in file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx