Mining Activities and the Chemical Composition of R. Modonkul, Transbaikalia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I have read this manuscript with great care. The issue of reclamation of former mines and their impact on the environment is very important throughout the world. Siberia, Sayane, Dzhydyian Moutains, Chamar –Daban and Khangarulskyi Moutanins are particularly important because of their amazing potential and beautiful nature. Preliminary geochemical tests are described in a reliable manner and the results do not raise major objections.
Reading the text is very interesting, although it leaves some unsatisfied information. I miss studies on stable isotopes that could make a more important contribution to understanding the processes of leaching and displacement of various substances in the water of the river. They would also indicate the impact of urban pollution, if it were on the precipitation of ions in water.
Going to substantive comments all the time, however, I think that the results of the discussion should be placed in separate chapters. This will allow future reinterpretation of research results. This is important.
Table 4 and Table 5 should be attached, it will be better legible in this way when we can compare suspended and dissolved contents side by side.
The map in figure 1 is illegible and of poor quality. No reference to the wider context, because not everyone knows where the city of Zakamiensk is (I was visit Baikal some times and Mundy also, but only google shows me where are there city). In my opinion it is worth placing a geological map showing the context of the location of these ores and perhaps marking other similar locations. This is a very interesting zone.
Fig 2 is pasted from the editor and is of poor quality, the letters are blurred.
Graphs 3-5 should be colored in hatching, it will be more readable for people printing text in black and white.
Analyzing the text, I noticed small typos in it, probably indicating rush. This is the case in 19, 54, 64-67, 101 lines, where there is no subscript in chemical designations, in line 35-37 no brackets are needed, in 108 and 134 Russian letters. Double spacing is also in 21, 175, 191 line. Wrong citation in line 109.
To sum up, please make some of the above-mentioned corrections in the text and in a new form I think that it will be printable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
We are deeply sorry because a dfart pdf-article was sent to you. We are currently sending you the final version of the article based on your comments. 1. Figures 1-2 are reworked, figure 3-4 are changed. 2. The final version of the article is substantially changed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is the review of the manuscript water-748181, namely "MINING ACTIVITIES AND THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF R. MODONKUL, TRANSBAIKALIA" by Zinaida Ivanovna Khazheeva, Aleksey Maksimovich Plyusnin, Olga
Konstantinovna Smirnova, Elena Georgievna Peryazeva, Seseg Sergeevna
Sanzhanova, Dashima Ivanovna Zhambalova, Viktoriya Valerievna Dabaeva,
Svetlana Gennadievna Doroshkevich for publishing in
WATER
General Comments:
This paper reports the studying of impact of the drainage mine runoff and tributary Inkur on the formation of the chemical composition of the river Modonkul. 80 water samples were taken from a surface of 0-0.5 m on seven sites. Moreover, the physical and chemical parameters were measured at the water sampling site, and chemical composition was analyzed in the laboratory. The flow of mine water into the Modonkul River leads to the formation of REE composition with negative cerium and positive europium anomalies. The article need for minor revisions. This paper would be more applicable after rewriting and revision to an environmental journal, such as Water. At attached file are critical issues to be resolved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
We are deeply sorry because a dfaft pdf-article was sent to you. We are currently sending you the final version of the article based on your comments. Thak you for you interest in the work and comments made!
Kind regads, authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of Mining activities and the chemical composition of R. Modonkul, Transbaikalia
This a well written documentation of the water quality changes which occur as mine drainage and river water lead to precipation event . The Introduction is however mainly a site description. The objective of the paper is to document the impact of the mine drainage, as one has to assume that this was not done before. A statement of the objective would be useful. It is a pitty that I could not find the values of TSS as you analysed everything very carefully, but possibly also a bild spot on my behalt .
Further on Figure 1 I can not find station M6 and M7 , may be I am blind but .
In line 97 page 32-18 you state from the coast – but I assume you mean the river bank as coast is a word used for oceans.
In lines 38 to 44 on page 8-18 You discuss a relationship of the mineralogy with the water at an R-0.86 with a significance of 0.49 but it would be great to see this graphic . I find it remarkable to find such a relation in water , with the TSS composition I could imagine it. Please explain a bit more .
Table 3; page 11 -18 What is Clark 14 K1 -K3 ? may be missed by me but should be noted at the bottom of the table
Table 4 please explain the underlined range of values and in this table the N# is missing.
Figure 5 the gaphs should have the same scale and here you present particles in ug/L and this would be TSS . How did you measure the TSS collected on filter paper..
On page 15 -18 you report a unit in microkilogramms /L very unusual unit ..
Figure 6 it would be interesting if you compare the REE to those concentrations in the Earth Curst to figure out if you could make a million by concentting this water , just evaporate it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
We are deeply sorry because a draft pdf-article was sent to you. We are currently sending you the final version of the article based on your comments. 1. Figure 1 are reworked 2. We change the coast to bank. 3. The word clark change to world mean value. 4. The final version of the article is substantially changed.
Kind regards, authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Pleace check the 110, 117, 119 and 122 line of Your manuscript in the chemical formula.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Corrections are made in line 110, 117, 119, 122. Thanks for your detailed review.Regards, authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I am pleased to inform you that your article has been Accept in present form in Water.Author Response
Dear reviewer, we send correction version.
Kind regards, authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The second version is significantly improved.
I recommend however that you make one table with the detection limits
the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations since they will differ for the TSD and the TDS i.e the dissolved and particulate determinations.
One absolutley puzzling point is that the values in Table 4 and 5 are different when compared to version 1. I suspect they are mixed up.
Figure 5 is definitely better as In v 1.
In line 476 you mean Funding not Finding
Author Response
Рец 3
Dear reviewer, we send corrections introduced:
- Replace Table3 with «Detection limit».
- For Mn 502 change to 483 in text
For Fe K3 1.8 change to 1.72
- Tables 4, 5 are not confused. Because table 5 gives the content of suspended solids in water. This is the difference between the second corrected version of the article from the first.
- In line 476 Finding change to Funding.
Thank you, for your detail work.
Kind regards, authors
