Assessing Mining-Related Water Impacts: A Case Study-Based Systematic Review Supporting a More Comprehensive Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript argues that mining-related impacts on water are often more persistent, costly, and spatially extensive than reflected by current water-reporting frameworks, which tend to emphasise operational balances and compliance while overlooking off-site, indirect, cumulative, and post-closure liabilities.  The authors compile 15 international case studies from 9 countries through a systematic literature review, propose six main impact categories spanning the mine life cycle, and complement the synthesis with original calculations of climatic water-balance shifts in German lignite “lakescapes.”   The topic is timely and the life-cycle framing is potentially valuable for regulators and practitioners; however, substantial revisions are required to improve methodological transparency, strengthen reproducibility and comparability of the quantitative evidence, and convert the narrative case compilation into a more rigorous, auditable synthesis that can credibly support the manuscript’s policy-facing conclusions.

1. The manuscript labels the approach “more comprehensive,” yet explicitly omits consumptive water use; please justify this exclusion and clarify what “comprehensive” means operationally.
2. Please add a PRISMA-style flow and provide the exact search strings, time windows, and database settings in the main text (not only via Supplementary Table S1).
3. Because impacts overlap, the manuscript needs explicit decision rules and examples showing consistent application across cases.
4. The Introduction/background is under-referenced and does not adequately situate the claimed “underestimation” of mining-related water impacts within existing reporting frameworks and recent methodological advances; additional literature is needed to substantiate these claims and sharpen the novelty, e.g., “Enhanced prediction of copper-polymetallic deposits in the Kalatag mining district using integrated SVM and GIS technology” and “Preparation of Ce-Fe2O3/Al2O3 catalyst for simultaneous degradation of benzodiacetone and reduction of Cr(VI) by electro-Fenton process: Performance, mechanism, degradation pathways”, with “Soft/hard interface design of bismuth nanodots embedded in Ti3C2Tx MXene for highly efficient dechlorination battery deionization” also relevant for the long-term water-quality perspective.
5. The paper repeatedly references indirect effects (agriculture, health, ecosystem services), but the method for identifying/quantifying them is not standardised.
6. Tables and narratives report a mix of lengths, loads, costs, and qualitative impacts; please standardise core metrics and add a cross-case comparison matrix to enable synthesis rather than juxtaposition.
7. The “primary data” component (reference-lake evaporation approach) is potentially valuable but under-specified; please provide full equations, input datasets, spatial representativeness, and justification for using 15-m (and 6-m interim) reference lakes as analogues for pit lakes with different morphometry and exposure.
8. The manuscript interprets evaporation deficits as drivers of regional drying and river dependency.
9. Several statements are rhetorically strong (e.g., “misleading,” “invisible impacts,” “systematically underestimate”); please ensure the language is consistently scientific and proportionate to the evidence presented, and add citations where claims generalise beyond the included cases.

Author Response

This manuscript argues that mining-related impacts on water are often more persistent, costly, and spatially extensive than reflected by current water-reporting frameworks, which tend to emphasise operational balances and compliance while overlooking off-site, indirect, cumulative, and post-closure liabilities.  The authors compile 15 international case studies from 9 countries through a systematic literature review, propose six main impact categories spanning the mine life cycle, and complement the synthesis with original calculations of climatic water-balance shifts in German lignite “lakescapes.”   The topic is timely and the life-cycle framing is potentially valuable for regulators and practitioners; however, substantial revisions are required to improve methodological transparency, strengthen reproducibility and comparability of the quantitative evidence, and convert the narrative case compilation into a more rigorous, auditable synthesis that can credibly support the manuscript’s policy-facing conclusions.

Comment 1: The manuscript labels the approach “more comprehensive,” yet explicitly omits consumptive water use; please justify this exclusion and clarify what “comprehensive” means operationally.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify the meaning of “more comprehensive”. In the revised manuscript, we added a paragraph in Section 2.3 explaining that consumptive water use is not explored in detail as it is typically adequately addressed by current water reporting. Consumptive water was identified as a water impact category as indicated in Fig. 2, row “Exploration” and column “Quantity, flow and availability”. It also provides a reference for what is operationally included under the term “more comprehensive”.

[Section Methodology lines 206–209 & Section Mining Impacts on Water: Selected Case Studies lines 238–241]

Comment 2: Please add a PRISMA-style flow and provide the exact search strings, time windows, and database settings in the main text (not only via Supplementary Table S1).

Response: To address this comment, we added a PRISMA-style flow diagram summarising the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of the case studies used in the qualitative synthesis (Figure 1). The diagram explicitly reports the number of records identified through database searches and other sources, the records remaining after duplicate removal, the records excluded during title and abstract screening, the full-text articles assessed for eligibility, and the full-text articles excluded together with the main reasons for exclusion. In addition, Section 2.1 has been revised to provide an explicit description of the search strategy in the main text. This now includes the databases consulted (Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), the types of documents considered, the use of Boolean operators combining mining-related and water-impact-related terms, the application of searches to titles, abstracts, and keywords where database functionality allowed, the temporal coverage of the search (from the early 20th century onwards, last updated in November 2025), and the languages considered. The complete list of search terms, grouped by thematic category, is provided in Supplementary Table S1, which is now explicitly referenced in the main text.

[Section Methodology lines 98–130 and Figure 1 lines 153–167]

Comment 3: Because impacts overlap, the manuscript needs explicit decision rules and examples showing consistent application across cases.

Response: This comment highlights an important methodological aspect of the analysis. We agree that mining-related water impacts frequently overlap and that this overlap needs to be addressed explicitly to ensure consistent application of the proposed framework.

To address this point, we clarified in Section 2.3 how overlapping impacts were handled during case study classification. The impact categories were not treated as mutually exclusive, but rather as analytical dimensions that may coexist within a single case study. Where multiple impact pathways were reported, a primary category was assigned based on the dominant hydrological mechanism described in the literature, while co-occurring impacts were explicitly documented in the qualitative description.

In addition, an illustrative example was added at the beginning of Section 3 to demonstrate how these decision rules were applied consistently in practice. In this example, a primary impact pathway is distinguished from secondary but interconnected effects, while retaining the complexity of the underlying system. These clarifications do not alter the original classification of the case studies, but make the analytical logic underlying the qualitative synthesis more explicit and transparent.

[Section Methodology lines 211–213 & Section Mining Impacts on Water: Selected Case Studies lines 226–230]

Comment 4: The Introduction/background is under-referenced and does not adequately situate the claimed “underestimation” of mining-related water impacts within existing reporting frameworks and recent methodological advances; additional literature is needed to substantiate these claims and sharpen the novelty, e.g., “Enhanced prediction of copper-polymetallic deposits in the Kalatag mining district using integrated SVM and GIS technology” and “Preparation of Ce-Fe2O3/Al2O3 catalyst for simultaneous degradation of benzodiacetone and reduction of Cr(VI) by electro-Fenton process: Performance, mechanism, degradation pathways”, with “Soft/hard interface design of bismuth nanodots embedded in Ti3C2Tx MXene for highly efficient dechlorination battery deionization” also relevant for the long-term water-quality perspective.

Response: We strengthened the Introduction by explicitly anchoring the discussion in common corporate reporting and environmental documentation practices, and by adding key references that further substantiate our claims regarding current limitations in capturing off-site, indirect, and post-closure impacts. While a more detailed analysis of current gaps in water reporting would certainly be desirable, its scope would constitute a review paper in its own right and would prohibitively expand the present manuscript. Given the broad agreement in the literature on the need to improve current water reporting practices across the extractive industry, we consider that the type and number of key references cited provide sufficient background and motivation for the present work, while maintaining a clear and focused scope. synthesis more explicit and transparent.

[Section Introduction lines 32–95]

Comment 5: The paper repeatedly references indirect effects (agriculture, health, ecosystem services), but the method for identifying/quantifying them is not standardised.

Response: This is indeed a crucial aspect, as the distinction between direct and indirect impacts is central to the manuscript’s line of argument. Given the diversity of indirect pathways across impact categories, it is however not always straightforward to apply a consistent separation rules.

To address this point, we expanded the Methodology section by adding a paragraph that explicitly defines what is meant by direct and indirect impacts in the context of this paper, supported by illustrative examples (e.g., sinkhole formation linked to dewatering, sediment contamination as a secondary pathway, and multi-tier pathways from irrigation to soils, crops, and health outcomes). We also clarified the recording procedure: indirect impacts were included only when explicitly described or clearly attributed in the case study sources, and they were documented qualitatively as secondary pathways linked to the dominant hydrological or water-quality mechanism. This improves transparency and consistency within the qualitative scope of the manuscript, without introducing a standardised quantification framework that is beyond the objectives of this study.

[Section Methodology lines 131–152]

Comment 6: Tables and narratives report a mix of lengths, loads, costs, and qualitative impacts; please standardise core metrics and add a cross-case comparison matrix to enable synthesis rather than juxtaposition.

Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment, which reflects a comprehensive understanding of the intention of the paper and the broader topic it addresses, and which also highlights constructive pathways for further development. We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful and constructive approach to the review process.

Yes indeed, this was one of the great challenges in the paper, given the wide range of impact types that are difficult to compare directly. We agree that this point is important for improving synthesis across case studies. To address it, we have substantially expanded and restructured the Discussion section. Specifically, we now include a proposal to express water-quality impacts (pollution) in terms of equivalent water volumes and associated costs, illustrating the approach with concrete numerical examples.

[Section Discussion lines 859–978]

Comment 7: The “primary data” component (reference-lake evaporation approach) is potentially valuable but under-specified; please provide full equations, input datasets, spatial representativeness, and justification for using 15-m (and 6-m interim) reference lakes as analogues for pit lakes with different morphometry and exposure.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment, which helped us to clarify the methodological approach and underlying assumptions used for calculating climatic water balances.

In response, we have expanded Section 2.2 (Methods) to more explicitly describe (i) the data sources employed, (ii) the selection and justification of 15-m-deep reference lakes (and 6-m-deep lakes for transitional phases), (iii) the correction applied to precipitation over open water surfaces, and (iv) the procedure used to calculate regional climatic water balances.

We have also clarified that these calculations are intended as illustrative and comparative, aiming to demonstrate the potential magnitude of land-use-driven changes following mine closure, rather than to provide an exhaustive or universally transferable quantification.

[Section Methodology lines 159–183 & Section Mining Impacts on Water: Selected Case Studies lines 758–856]

Comment 8: The manuscript interprets evaporation deficits as drivers of regional drying and river dependency.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the manuscript, mining-enhanced evaporation associated with newly formed water surfaces is considered one contributing factor among several, alongside regional climatic conditions, land use, and other mining-induced hydrological alterations, which together can increase drying tendencies and reliance on river inflows. We revised the relevant text to make this multi-factor framing explicit.

Comment 9: Several statements are rhetorically strong (e.g., “misleading,” “invisible impacts,” “systematically underestimate”); please ensure the language is consistently scientific and proportionate to the evidence presented, and add citations where claims generalise beyond the included cases.

Response: Thank you for this comment, which prompted us to carefully review the tone and phrasing of several statements throughout the manuscript. We agree that the language should remain scientific, balanced, and proportionate to the evidence presented.

In response, we have revised the text to moderate potentially rhetorical formulations and to ensure a more neutral wording, particularly in passages discussing broader implications. Where statements extend beyond individual case studies, we have verified that they are appropriately contextualised and, where necessary, supported by additional references.

The manuscript follows an inductive approach, deriving general insights from well-documented case studies. While we consider these conclusions to be firmly grounded in the empirical evidence presented, we have adjusted the language to more clearly reflect this inductive reasoning and to avoid overly categorical interpretations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Meaning of “quantification” in the review needs to be clarified. The manuscript states that mining-related water impacts are “identified, quantified, and categorised,” but most of the synthesis is descriptive. It is therefore not always clear what the authors mean by “quantified” in this context. Please clarify whether “quantification” refers simply to extracting and reporting quantitative values from the literature (when available), rather than applying a consistent quantitative framework across case studies. A brief clarification here would make the methodological description more transparent and avoid overstating the level of quantification.

 

2. Please specify what is meant by “existing water reporting/disclosure approaches”. The manuscript refers repeatedly to “existing water reporting or disclosure approaches,” but the referent is sometimes ambiguous. For example, it is not always clear whether this refers to corporate sustainability disclosures, water footprint studies, formal reporting standards, or other assessment practices. Please clarify what types of approaches you are referring to in these passages, and consider adding one or two brief examples to anchor the discussion.

 

 

3. Conclusions are currently broad; a few concrete implications would strengthen them.The conclusions make a reasonable case for more comprehensive assessment of mining-related water impacts, but the implications remain quite general. It would strengthen the paper to add a small number of specific, feasible takeaways—for instance, how the impact categories identified here could inform future reporting practice, regulatory attention, or research priorities—without needing to propose a full implementation framework.

Author Response

Comment 1: Meaning of “quantification” in the review needs to be clarified. The manuscript states that mining-related water impacts are “identified, quantified, and categorised,” but most of the synthesis is descriptive. It is therefore not always clear what the authors mean by “quantified” in this context. Please clarify whether “quantification” refers simply to extracting and reporting quantitative values from the literature (when available), rather than applying a consistent quantitative framework across case studies. A brief clarification here would make the methodological description more transparent and avoid overstating the level of quantification.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We agree that the term “quantification” could be interpreted too broadly. To avoid ambiguity, we revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to state explicitly that the manuscript follows a primarily qualitative and descriptive approach aimed at identifying and structuring mining-related water impacts that are not consistently captured in current reporting practices.

We also clarify that “quantification” refers only to extracting and reporting numerical values available in the literature (when provided), enabling limited cross-case comparisons but not a consistent quantitative framework across sites.

[Section Introduction lines 76–87]

Comment 2: Please specify what is meant by “existing water reporting/disclosure approaches”. The manuscript refers repeatedly to “existing water reporting or disclosure approaches,” but the referent is sometimes ambiguous. For example, it is not always clear whether this refers to corporate sustainability disclosures, water footprint studies, formal reporting standards, or other assessment practices. Please clarify what types of approaches you are referring to in these passages, and consider adding one or two brief examples to anchor the discussion.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. To reduce ambiguity, we clarified in the Introduction that our discussion refers primarily to routine corporate and regulatory water reporting practices, such as environmental compliance documentation and sustainability reporting, rather than to academic assessment frameworks. We also added brief contextual examples to anchor the discussion, while avoiding an extensive definitional treatment in order to keep the Introduction focused and concise.

[Section Introduction lines 31–95]

Comment 3: Conclusions are currently broad; a few concrete implications would strengthen them. The conclusions make a reasonable case for more comprehensive assessment of mining-related water impacts, but the implications remain quite general. It would strengthen the paper to add a small number of specific, feasible takeaways—for instance, how the impact categories identified here could inform future reporting practice, regulatory attention, or research priorities—without needing to propose a full implementation framework.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We revised the Conclusions to include more concrete, feasible implications. We specify how the typology can inform reporting and regulatory attention by highlighting indirect, off-site, and post-closure pathways. We also added a brief note on a potential cost-based perspective for future cross-category comparisons, without proposing a full framework.

[Section Conclusions lines 982–1008]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic for water resource sustainability. Thank you for your efforts and contributions to this important area of research. To further strengthen the manuscript during the review process, several issues still require clarification, as outlined below.

Introduction section

• It is recommended to explicitly incorporate the role of anthropogenic climate change as an amplifying factor of water quality degradation linked to economic water use. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report emphasizes that climate change increases contaminant mobilization, reduces natural dilution during prolonged droughts, and heightens pollutant transport during extreme precipitation events. This process diminishes the effective availability of both surface and groundwater resources (IPCC, 2021; IPCC, 2022). Integrating this perspective across multiple sections of the manuscript, such as the Introduction, Results interpretation, and Discussion, would provide a more comprehensive assessment of long-term water availability and water security.
• The analysis could be expanded to include information about monitoring of water use by source (surface water, groundwater, recycled water) and accounting for discharge volumes. Many countries, particularly in Latin America, lack comprehensive tracking of withdrawals and returns due to limited regulatory and monitoring frameworks. Addressing this aspect would improve water traceability and enable a more robust assessment of cumulative, off-site, and long-term impacts associated with mining activities.
• Since the case study focuses on pit lakes, consider expanding this section to address water sources and use, as well as the key impact mechanisms related to pit lake systems. Explicitly linking pit lake dynamics to the proposed impact categories would strengthen the interpretation of hydrological and environmental risks, enhancing the relevance of the case study within the overall impact framework.

 

Result sections

• In Section 3.6 (Impacts Through Hydrological Alterations), the role of climate variability and climate change should be explicitly considered. Climate events such as prolonged droughts, altered precipitation regimes, and more frequent extreme rainfall events are key drivers of the impacts discussed in Section 3.6.2. The authors should clarify whether the reported values represent long-term averages and discuss the potential influence of increasing temperatures on evapotranspiration, as well as the risk of pit lake overflow during extreme precipitation events.

Discussion section

• Lines 768-769. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are expected to be a mandatory requirement for this type of productive activity; however, they are relatively recent administrative instruments in many jurisdictions. Could the authors clarify whether EIAs are in place in the countries considered as case studies and briefly describe their scope and implementation period? In particular, indicating whether these assessments address hydrological impacts, post-closure conditions, and long-term monitoring would improve transparency and help contextualize the results within existing regulatory frameworks.
• Could the authors discuss the role of governance and institutional credibility in achieving sustainable mining practices, particularly regarding water resources? In several contexts, limited institutional capacity and issues related to transparency or corruption can undermine the effective implementation of environmental regulations, monitoring, and enforcement. Including a brief discussion on how governance challenges may influence sustainable water use and management in mining would add important context and strengthen the broader interpretation of the results.

Conclusion section

• Conclusions should be reviewed consequently.

Author Response

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic for water resource sustainability. Thank you for your efforts and contributions to this important area of research. To further strengthen the manuscript during the review process, several issues still require clarification, as outlined below.

Comment 1: It is recommended to explicitly incorporate the role of anthropogenic climate change as an amplifying factor of water quality degradation linked to economic water use. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report emphasizes that climate change increases contaminant mobilization, reduces natural dilution during prolonged droughts, and heightens pollutant transport during extreme precipitation events. This process diminishes the effective availability of both surface and groundwater resources (IPCC, 2021; IPCC, 2022). Integrating this perspective across multiple sections of the manuscript, such as the Introduction, Results interpretation, and Discussion, would provide a more comprehensive assessment of long-term water availability and water security.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that climate change can amplify mining-related impacts on water quality and availability. We therefore added an explicit statement in the Introduction, citing the IPCC AR6 (2021, 2022), to place the reviewed impacts in a broader context of increasing water stress without expanding the manuscript into a dedicated climate assessment.

[Section Introduction lines 71–75]

Comment 2: The analysis could be expanded to include information about monitoring of water use by source (surface water, groundwater, recycled water) and accounting for discharge volumes. Many countries, particularly in Latin America, lack comprehensive tracking of withdrawals and returns due to limited regulatory and monitoring frameworks. Addressing this aspect would improve water traceability and enable a more robust assessment of cumulative, off-site, and long-term impacts associated with mining activities.

Response: Thank you for the comment. While a detailed review of source-specific monitoring and return-flow accounting is beyond this study’s scope, we added to the Discussion that limited tracking of withdrawals and discharges constrains traceability and hampers assessment of cumulative, off-site, and long-term impacts.

[Section Discussion lines 859–978]

Comment 3: Since the case study focuses on pit lakes, consider expanding this section to address water sources and use, as well as the key impact mechanisms related to pit lake systems. Explicitly linking pit lake dynamics to the proposed impact categories would strengthen the interpretation of hydrological and environmental risks, enhancing the relevance of the case study within the overall impact framework.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We already link pit lake processes to the proposed framework by assigning pit lake effects, including evaporation losses, to the category Hydrological alterations. To make this clearer, we strengthened the wording and added an explicit cross-reference to Figure 2 (right column, last entry: hydrological alterations (pit lake impacts)).

[Section Introduction Figure 2 lines 238–241]

Comment 4: In Section 3.6 (Impacts Through Hydrological Alterations), the role of climate variability and climate change should be explicitly considered. Climate events such as prolonged droughts, altered precipitation regimes, and more frequent extreme rainfall events are key drivers of the impacts discussed in Section 3.6.2. The authors should clarify whether the reported values represent long-term averages and discuss the potential influence of increasing temperatures on evapotranspiration, as well as the risk of pit lake overflow during extreme precipitation events.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of climate variability and climate change in the context of hydrological alterations.

With respect to climate change and evaporation, we have added a section providing additional information on long-term climatic changes in the study area. By specifying the respective observation periods, we clarify that the reported values consistently represent long-term averages based on identical or at least comparable time windows, spanning a minimum of one climatic normal period (30 years) and in many cases considerably longer. As the analysis focuses on open water surfaces (lakes), we refer to evaporation only, as transpiration is of marginal relevance in this context. Potential future implications of the observed climatic trends for pit lakes are now discussed, as suggested.

Regarding the risk of pit-lake overflow during extreme precipitation events, all lakes considered have natural outflows into connected river systems. Consequently, there is no risk of uncontrolled overflow following extreme rainfall events. On the contrary, pit lakes may play a beneficial role during flood events, as their large storage volumes increase regional retention capacity and contribute to attenuating and smoothing downstream flood waves. A comprehensive assessment of the hydrological functions of pit lakes, however, would go beyond the scope of the present paper and was therefore not further elaborated.

[Section 3.6.2 Creating Water-Negative Post-Mining “Lakescapes” in Lignite Regions of Central and Eastern Germany lines 844-856 & Section Introduction Figure 2 lines 238–241]

Comment 5: Lines 768-769. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are expected to be a mandatory requirement for this type of productive activity; however, they are relatively recent administrative instruments in many jurisdictions. Could the authors clarify whether EIAs are in place in the countries considered as case studies and briefly describe their scope and implementation period? In particular, indicating whether these assessments address hydrological impacts, post-closure conditions, and long-term monitoring would improve transparency and help contextualize the results within existing regulatory frameworks.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this point. We agree that EIAs are now widely required for mining projects; however, their adoption is relatively recent in many jurisdictions, and several case studies analysed here stem from operations permitted before modern EIA legislation or under less comprehensive regulatory standards. In the revised manuscript, we clarify that EIA scope and implementation timelines vary across jurisdictions and that EIAs often focus on operational, site-scale hydrological compliance, whereas cumulative, off-site and post-closure impacts and multi-decadal monitoring needs are frequently addressed only to a limited extent. We added this clarification in the Discussion to better contextualise the case studies within existing regulatory frameworks and to support our argument for more comprehensive assessment of mining-related water impacts.

[Section Discussion lines 939–943]

Comment 6: Could the authors discuss the role of governance and institutional credibility in achieving sustainable mining practices, particularly regarding water resources? In several contexts, limited institutional capacity and issues related to transparency or corruption can undermine the effective implementation of environmental regulations, monitoring, and enforcement. Including a brief discussion on how governance challenges may influence sustainable water use and management in mining would add important context and strengthen the broader interpretation of the results.

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We agree that governance quality, institutional capacity, transparency, and enforcement can strongly influence mining-related water management outcomes. A detailed comparative governance analysis lies beyond the scope of this review, but we have added a brief paragraph in the Discussion (Section 4.5) acknowledging these constraints and their role in the persistence of cumulative, off-site, and post-closure impacts.

[Section Discussion lines 952–961]

Comment 7: Conclusions should be reviewed consequently.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In response, we revised and streamlined the Conclusions to ensure consistency with the expanded sections and to provide a concise synthesis of the main findings.

[Section Discussion lines 861–992, Table 5 lines 979–980 & Conclusions lines 982–1008]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone substantial revision, and the technical issues raised in the first review have been well addressed. The overall quality has improved significantly. However, the reference framework remains somewhat limited. It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating the following recent and relevant works into the introduction to strengthen the contextual basis of their study: Highly stretchable TPU/g-C3N4 composite nanofiber film for enhancing the piezo-photocatalytic sewage treatment by electrospinning-induced pretension; Lanthanum-quaternized chitosan-modified zeolite for long-lasting operation of constructed wetland: A bifunctional strategy for simultaneous phosphorus removal and microbial clogging mitigation.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the revised manuscript and for acknowledging that the technical issues raised in the first round of review have been satisfactorily addressed.

With regard to the suggestion to incorporate the proposed recent studies, we have carefully considered their scope and relevance in relation to the objectives of the present review. While these works represent valuable advances in specific water treatment technologies and nature-based remediation approaches, they focus primarily on the development and optimisation of individual treatment systems.

In contrast, the main objective of this manuscript is to identify, classify and synthesise mining-induced water impacts that are frequently underreported, with particular emphasis on impact pathways, reporting gaps and their implications for licensing, regulation and decision-making. As such, we consider that the inclusion of highly specialised, site-specific treatment studies would not substantially strengthen the contextual framework of the review, nor align with its broader analytical scope.

For this reason, we have decided not to incorporate the suggested references, while maintaining a clear focus on the systematic assessment of mining-related water impacts at a global level.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to evaluate the manuscript and the positive assessment.