Next Article in Journal
Impact of the Digital Economy and Financial Development on Residents’ Consumption Upgrading: Evidence from Mainland China
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Manganese Contamination in Relation to River Morphology: A Study of the Boac and Mogpog Rivers in Marinduque, Philippines
Previous Article in Journal
Cupressus sempervirens Essential Oil, Nanoemulsion, and Major Terpenes as Sustainable Green Pesticides against the Rice Weevil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study on the Adsorption Characteristics of Heavy Metal Ions by Activated Carbon and Selected Natural Adsorbents
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Influence of Mineral Deposition on the Retention of Potentially Hazardous Elements in Geothermal Spring Sediments

Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8040; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108040
by Yafeng Wang and Hefa Cheng *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8040; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108040
Submission received: 15 March 2023 / Revised: 3 May 2023 / Accepted: 13 May 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review on “Influence of Mineral Deposition on the Retention of Potentially Hazardous Elements in Geothermal Hot Spring Sediments”

 

Line 46: There are no “inorganic” and “organic” elements. Only inorganic and organic compounds. Please use only the term “elements.

The materials and Methods section is incomplete. What are the models of the microwave, the ICP-MS and the other instruments? Did you use a reference standard? What were the recoveries? Please list all the details so that if someone wants to reproduce the analysis, can have all the necessary information.

The presentation of the results is very well done.

 

What are the parameters of the ICP-MS and the other instruments used? They should be listed in tables in the experimental.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have meticulously reviewed your interesting article. Other than a couple of minor fixes, I haven't noticed any serious shortcomings. Good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 2-4: Title is OK.

Lines 9-21: Abstract is OK, and needs just little corrections as shown in the attached pdf (annotated).

Lines 22-23: Keywords are enough and suitable.

Line 27-39: The first paragraph in the introduction needs few changes. Same for the second paragraph (lines 46-47) and so is the third paragraph (lines 62-70).

Line3 86-88: For your XRF, XRD and ICP-MS analysis in the methodology section, you need to mention model of machine and place of each analytical technique used. A 2-line sentence about accuracy and precision of measurement would be awesome.

Line 174: In the result section as well as in caption of tables (e.g. Table 2), always use major oxides and trace elements.

In Table 2: For the oxide contents with 0 wt%, you need to indicate if this is because of content below the detection limit (bdl) or not determined (n.d).

Line 226: You mentioned that you did not obtain Sr from the XRD analysis. You have already Sr in association with Ca in the crystal structure of carbonate minerals such as CaCO3.

Line 287: In the conclusion, not only Cr and V are retained in clay and feldspar minerals but Al too.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is much improved and ready for publication.

Back to TopTop