Comprehensive Evaluation of the Eco-Geological Environment in the Concentrated Mining Area of Mineral Resources
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Comprehensive Evaluation of the Eco-geological Environment in Concentrated Mining Areas of Mineral Resources" by Chenyang Wu, Yichen Zhang , Jiquan Zhang, Yanan Chen, Chenyu Duan, Jiawei Qi, Zhongshuai Cheng and Zengkai Pan was submitted for peer review.
The authors considered a very important topic: reducing the burden on the environment from the activities of mining enterprises by reducing environmental and geological (environmental-geological) degradation. For this purpose, a comprehensive assessment of the ecological and geological environment in the Areas of concentrated mining was given.
At the same time, I would like to note that the manuscript has a number of minor shortcomings, the elimination of which will improve the manuscript and increase the perception of the presented information by the reader.
1.) From my point of view, the literature review of previous studies is rather poorly presented in the text
1.1.) The authors in the study mainly rely on the work of Chinese scientists (80% of the reference list). Undoubtedly, Chinese scientists in recent decades have made a huge contribution to research designed to reduce the burden on the environment. However, rich world experience has been accumulated in this field of science. It is necessary to increase the geography of citation.
You might check recent contributions from:
Serbia : https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050547 ;
Russia : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11015-021-01065-5 ;
Czech Republic : https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/95/4/042061 ;
Saudi Arabia : https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116204
and make your own selection using Scopus and/or MDPI serch engine,
1.2.) It is necessary to identify more clearly the problems raised by the authors (the moment when they began to raise this problem in science and this topic, and if they didn’t, then why?)
1.3.) It is necessary to summarize the main issues that other scientists have previously disclosed (or the main thing they are silent about and why?), maybe they did not directly affect this problem (and why?), but it can be traced in works in related topics, and then lead to the tasks of the article itself are to close the blank spot.
2.) From my point of view, it is necessary to briefly summarize the analysis of previous works and outline the goals and objectives of this work. This will allow the reader to more accurately understand the direction of this study. For example: "A comprehensive assessment of the ecological and geological environment in the Areas of concentrated mining seems to be a very relevant issue. In this regard, the purpose of this work is ...... To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks 1) ... 2) ... "
3.) From my point of view section 2.1. "Study Area" is overloaded with information that is not related to the purpose of the study. In addition, this information can be obtained from available sources (for example, the Wikipedia resource). In a research article, there is no need to post well-known information. This distracts the reader from the main topic of the study and detracts from the scope of the research work carried out by the authors.
4.) In section 2.1. "Study Area" the authors mention 38 mining enterprises operating in the Tonghua City region and give the total production and number of employees for all enterprises. From my point of view, it is necessary to provide information on each enterprise. This can be done in the form of a table, which will reduce the amount of text, but the reader will receive a maximum of factual data. The following information should be placed in the table: enterprise; method of development (open, underground, combined); in the case of underground mining, indicate the system used; development depth; type of extracted raw material; the number of employees; production volume; the final product of the enterprise (ore, concentrate; metal, etc.), that is, whether the enterprise is the final production cycle; volumes of technogenic formations and their type (liquid; solid; suspensions) and another. This information will allow the reader to be more informed about the region of study.
5.) In line 139-140, the authors talk about different methods for assessing the degree of impact on EEQ. "Different" concept is too abstract. It is necessary to specify which methods are involved.
6.) In section 2.2. Investigative Framework authors take into account a number of internal and external factors. Why did they accept these particular factors and why did they reject others.
7.) Who made the figure 2. If by the authors, then it is necessary to indicate this. If borrowed, it is necessary to refer to the authors or indicate the presence of permission for the demonstration.
8.) This study uses data from 2015. This is 7 years ago. Why was more recent data not used?
9.) Figure 4 is fuzzy. The inscriptions are very small and difficult to read. Needs to be improved.
10.) Same as in remark (7). Who made Figure 4. If the authors, then it is necessary to indicate this. If borrowed, it is necessary to refer to the authors or indicate the presence of permission for the demonstration.
11.) The same as in remark (7). Who made Figure 5. If the authors, then it is necessary to indicate this. If borrowed, it is necessary to refer to the authors or indicate the presence of permission for the demonstration.
12.) In lines 343 - 348, 351-356, the authors specify the main ecological and geological problems of the regions. From my point of view, this information should be placed in section 2.1. "Study Area" These remarks can be continued. Authors need to clearly separate materials and results.
13.) The statement of the authors made in line 385 - 389 is very doubtful from my point of view. Since the proximity of the river strongly contributes to the migration of pollution. Therefore, the absence of difficulties for ecological recovery is highly debatable. Why is such a conclusion made? There are no studies to support this claim.
14.) Lines 389 - 394 are not a discussion of the results but refer to the materials.
15.) Chapter 4. Discussion is written incorrectly. In it, the authors describe common truths: "take quick corrective action"; "strengthen annual survey systems"; "provide accurate standards" and more. This list can be continued by citing the authors. The claimed truths are known to everyone involved in this field of study. The authors did an excellent study, so I would like them to provide a discussion of this study. Chapter 4. Discussion needs to be redone.
16.) Conclusions should be short and concise.
16.1) From my point of view, it is inappropriate to repeat the factors taken into account in the study and the methods used, since the authors have already written about this in the course of the study.
16.2) The authors' statement in line 478-480 is not a conclusion, but an axiom. Precisely because "The overall habitat environment in Tonghua is influenced by mining activities, and the eco-geological environment level in the coal mining area in the upper reaches of the Hun River and the population gathering area in the middle reaches is poor. " The authors started this study.
17.) Some minor editorial issues appear in the reference list.
17.1) Missing names of reference [42] Authors (Wang, Y.; Dong, R.; Zhou, Y.; Luo, X.)
From my point of view, the shortcomings made by the authors in chapters 4 and 5 originate from remark (2). Due to the fuzzy definition of the research question and the not entirely correct setting of the goals and objectives of this study, the authors were unable to correctly formulate the conclusions.
At the same time, the authors have excellent material, the research methodology is correctly defined, and excellent results are obtained.
From my point of view, this manuscript is subject to publication when corrections are made to it in accordance with the comments.
Sincerely
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript with the title “Comprehensive Evaluation of the Eco-geological Environment in Concentrated Mining Areas of Mineral Resources” is an interesting paper and it should be attractive to the readers of the Sustainability journal.
In this study, the authors evaluate the quality of the regional eco-geological environment by combining regional characteristics and taking the concentrated mining area of mineral resources in Tonghua City as an example. For these purposes, the authors used the index system with three components in mind: the eco-geological environment backdrop, environmental pollution, and human and mining engineering geological operations.
However, I would ask the authors to explain why they chose these three criteria and to point it out. I also wonder why they did not consider air pollution in their study?
A reference list is up to date and more than adequate
I can recommend the publication of the following manuscript with minor revision.
Author Response
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comments. We learned from the Department of Ecology and Environment of Jilin Province that Tonghua City, as a resource-based city, but the number of days with good annual air quality (AQI) is above 300 days.
There may be several reasons for this:
- The Chinese government has been committed to eliminating haze for a long time, so air pollution in each city is strictly regulated.
- influenced by Changbai Mountain, the region belongs to the north temperate continental monsoon climate, abundant rainfall, many windy days, strong dustfall effect, air pollution as an evaluation indicator impact is not significant.
- Tonghua City mine area follows the characteristics of "more small mines, less large mines", although more open-pit mining but the total area is not large.
- During the survey, no examples of diseases caused by air pollution were found in the mining area, indicating that air is not the main mining pollutant.
Therefore, we did not use air pollution as an evaluation indicator.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors I deeply appreciate the work you did to improve the Readers' perception of your contribution. I hope that my comments listed in my first review were helpful. Personally, believe it or not, I enjoy very much the fact that you argued some of my comments and you kept your position (e.g. point 4. of my review). Indeed, sometimes reviewers (like me) try to impose their point of view and demand changes that simply cannot be done at the moment. I hope however that in depth analysis of 38 mining enterprises operating in the Tonghua City region might form solid bases for your next (future) study. I think that you might point in your conclusions that a lot of work has been done so far with potentially beneficial effects to the region. Some issues remained so far unsolved so there is still a perspective (need) for further research. Such "reservations" always look nice at the end of the study. But it is not mandatory. I marked "Accept in present form", however some minor editorial corrections will still be necessary, e.g. in line 90 the new sentence should start with "Rybak [23] proposed ..." not "J. Rybak [23] proposed ...". These are minor issues that will probably be checked and corrected by Technical Editors. Sincerely
