Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed the paper as a Geologist-Mineralogist. Another reviewer - a Biologist has to check the biological part.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing is required. I colored yellow the wrong writings and offered the right one in a comment on the same line.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. I apologize for the English mistakes. I accept all the corrections and changed the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Arsenic distribution and pollution in three mountain streams (Anzasca Valley, Italian Central Alps)

 

• It is recommended to mention more specific details about the main findings in the Abstract.
• Clarify in the Abstract if the results showed a significant correlation between arsenic levels and the stability of phytobenthic communities.
• I suggest adding more specific terms, such as "acid drainage" or "metamorphic rocks", in the Keywords.
• It's not clear how the arsenic in Rio Roletto compares to the other two streams. Does "without arsenic" mean there's no arsenic at all or just comparatively lower levels?
• The time frame (2012-2014) for the sampling is mentioned, but more specific details about the sampling frequency, methods, and procedures would offer clarity.
• How might these findings impact local ecosystems, human health, or mining practices in the area?
• Comparing and contrasting the findings with other related studies is recommended.
• In the interest of enriching the manuscript's depth and contextual relevance, I'd like to suggest considering the following articles, which are similar topics or methodologies as your study:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2079-z

https://doi.org/10.3923/rjes.2010.250.260

 

• It is recommend to propose a future study or recommendation as a guide subsequent research in this domain.
• In Line 28, "Pyrite is present in sediments of many rivers..." – The relevance of pyrite to the main focus on arsenic is not immediately clear. An explicit link or transitional sentence would be useful.
• The introduction touches upon the health implications of arsenic, particularly concerning drinking water. Strengthening this section by adding more on global arsenic-related health issues, if relevant, could amplify the importance of the study.
• Line 52: Consider providing a brief history or additional context on the "Miniera dei Cani" for readers unfamiliar with this mine.
• Consider ending the introduction with a more explicit statement on the study's goals or hypotheses, which can act as a roadmap for the reader.
• A brief overview of the effects of arsenic on aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity could provide a more comprehensive context.
• It would be beneficial to briefly explain why heavy precipitation affects water chemistry.
• While discussing improvements in the LOD, it might be beneficial to provide specific values or ranges if possible.
• It might be helpful to contextualize why certain chemical components (e.g., sulphate, calcium, magnesium) are of particular interest in the context of this study.
• Briefly explain why ICP-OES was chosen as the method of detection and its significance in this study.
• Clarification is required on the treatment process and why specific metals were lost upon filtration. A clear distinction between treated and untreated samples and the implications of such treatment on metal detection is suggested.
• While the "Discussion" section provides a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the three streams, I recommend incorporating a "Conclusion" section to summarize the key findings and their implications.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately addressed my comments. I recommend the publication of the revised manuscript.