A Study of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of Yellow River Sediments and Their Impact on the Reclamation of Coal-Mined Subsided Land

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors experimentally investigated the physical and mechanical properties of Yellow River sediments and possible engineering problems during backfilling in the coal- mined subsided land. The topic is interesting. The authors should pay attention to the following questions.

1)Line49-50 check the correctness of the sentence” concerns. Fly ash, due to its alkalinity, high salinity, cementitious ability, and harms plant growth.”

2)Line 180 what is sediment retention rate? is It Residual water content? Explain it, please.

3)Line 328-329 add the references for the data.

4)Line 377 the porosity is 0.672? please check it carefully.  Such a high porosity? Maybe it is void ratio.

5)Line 422”[29] propose” should be “Sb. proposed …”

6)line 413 quick-acting? How to understand it?

7)Line 574 repeated phrases “With the increase in depth of backfill”

8)Line 451 “Sticky particles settle on the surface, forming evaporation barriers within the filled Yellow River sediment section” why does it happen? Explain it more.

9) about the designing the final elevation (H) and initial backfill elevation (h), explain it more. Since it is one of the major conclusions of this research.

fair， can be improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your many constructive comments. We made a detailed reply in the following document, and highlighted the corresponding revision changes in the resubmitted document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a commendable effort in their research, and the work is deemed acceptable for publication with some revisions and clarifications as mentioned in the review comments.

Comments:

-        The captions of Figures and Tables could benefit from improvement to ensure they are self-sufficient and can stand alone.

-        Overall, while the paper covers a topic of potential interest, it requires significant improvements to enhance its clarity, scientific rigor, and contribution to the field. I encourage the authors to address the mentioned concerns and make the necessary revisions to strengthen the paper for publication. It should provide the research gap that this study aims to address!

-        The discussion effectively connects the obtained results to the research objectives. It highlights the significance of the findings in the context of existing literature. However, I encourage the authors to expand on potential limitations and future directions to provide a more well-rounded conclusion.

-        The quality of Figure 8 should be improved.

Overall, the paper is well-structured and follows a logical progression. The organization of sections aids in understanding the flow of ideas. However, in some instances, the transitions between sections could be smoother to enhance the overall readability. I appreciate the authors' dedication to this research and their willingness to contribute to the academic community.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your many constructive comments. We made a detailed reply in the following document, and highlighted the corresponding revision changes in the resubmitted document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented an interesting study related to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of Yellow River sediments. The introduction is well written, presenting a good state of art. However, the methodology needs to be improved including the statistical analysis used, and more details about the models presented in the results. The results are well presented, and well structed. However, the discussion needs to be improved by presenting results of soil collected from forest or crop land to have a reference to discuss the results.   

Find below some specific comments:

Line 34 : add reference to support the statistics cited

Line 46 : put the reference in the journal standard “(Kumar and Singh, 46 2003; Wang et al., 2016) “

Line 118 : add a section for statistical analysis and regression used in the paper.

Line 119 : add more details about the number of samples collected.

Line 292-294: transfer this section the methodology .

Line 414 : the soil properties need to be compared with a reference such soil collected from forest or crop land near to experiment.

Line 536 : the resolution of the figures needs to be improved.

Moderate language correction is needed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your many constructive comments. We made a detailed reply in the following document, and highlighted the corresponding revision changes in the resubmitted document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the raised questions. I consider it can be accepted now.

suggestions for further improvements:

1)      Add error bar to all figures related to.,

2)      How to understand “5. Conclusions (3):Balancing project timeliness and cost against the dangers of insufficient preparation of the sediment is necessary for optimization.” Are there any support materials for this point, if yes, append it in the paper; if no, remove this sentence.

it is ok

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf