Quantification and Speciation of Trace Metals under Pollution Impact: Case Study of a Subarctic Lake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript water-827844 reports an interesting and well carried out study about monitoring and assessment of the quality of surface water bodies.

Below my suggestions for improve the manuscript:

• The manuscript has grammar and language issues, which need to be addressed. Extensive editing of English language and style are required.
• Page 1, line 40: Please, add references.
• Page 1, line 40: humus substance --> organic substance
• Page 1, line 40: add Eh environment
• Page 2, line 44: add more references.
• Page 2, line 47: Please, add references.
• Page 2, line 49: add more references.
• Page 2, line 52: Please, add references.
• Page 2, line 55: Please, add references.
• Page 2, line 59: Please, add references.
• Page 2, line 62 and 64: Please, add references.
• Please, e.g. --> g.
• Page 2, line 75: “water object”. What's?
• Page 2, line 76, 78,79, 81: Please, add references.
• Page 2, line 88: “ultra-fresh”. What's?
• Figure 1 does not have the scale and the image appears deformed
• Page 3, from line 96 to line 102: Please, add references.
• Please, increase the quality of Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5

Author Response

The authors are very grateful to the review for the careful work with the text.

We tried to take into account all the comments.

• The manuscript has grammar and language issues, which need to be addressed. Extensive editing of English language and style are required.

We contacted a translation agency MDPI.

We hope the text meets the requirements

• Page 1, line 40: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 1, line 40: humus substance --> organic substance

Corrected

• Page 1, line 40: add Eh environment

Corrected

• Page 2, line 44: add more references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 47: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 49: add more references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 52: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 55: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 59: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 62 and 64: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Please, e.g. --> 

Corrected

• Page 2, line 75: “water object”. What's?

Corrected

• Page 2, line 76, 78,79, 81: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Page 2, line 88: “ultra-fresh”. What's?

Water with very low salinity. The salinity is equivalent or nearly equivalent to that of rainwater.

• Figure 1 does not have the scale and the image appears deformed

Corrected

• Page 3, from line 96 to line 102: Please, add references.

Corrected

• Please, increase the quality of Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5

Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript entitled “Quantification and speciation of trace metals under pollution impact: case study of subarctic lake” submitted by M.I. Dinu, V.M. Shkinev, T.I.Moiseenko, R.Kh. Dzenloda, T.V.Danilova, can be accepted for publishing in Water Journal, after minor revision.

In this study is presented the environmental aquatic chemistry research and assess of geochemical processes of metal speciation in Arctic lake in the zone of metallurgical waste and other areas, where natural processes prevail. The manuscript presents an original approach, which is well systemized and organized. However, some corrections should be made before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Here is a list of my specific comments:

1. Page 2, 2.1. Characteristics of the lake and samples points: In this section pay attention on the experimental methodologies. All others observations should be moved in Results and discussion section.
2. Page 2, line 110: Replace “The authors selected two samples points:” with “Two samples points were selected”.
3. Page 2, Fig. 1: In this figure are marked 3 points. Why???
4. Page 4, line 151: “…main cations (Са2+, Mg2+, К+, Na+), Si, alkalinity (Alk), SO42-, Сl-, color(Col), organic matter content (OMC), total nitrogen (ТN) and its forms (NO3- and NH4+), total phosphorus ТР and РО43-…”. How were determined these parameters???
5. Page 7, line 241: “It was revealed that there was an increase…”. How can be explained this variation???
6. Page 13, References: The number of references is quite low.

Author Response

The authors are very grateful to the review for the careful work with the text.

We tried to take into account all the comments.

1. Page 2, 2.1. Characteristics of the lake and samples points: In this section pay attention on the experimental methodologies. All others observations should be moved in Results and discussion section.

We were afraid to lose the logic in the article. Therefore, the following changes were proposed: expand the name of the section. We hope that this option will be convenient

1. Page 2, line 110: Replace “The authors selected two samples points:” with “Two samples points were selected”.

Corrected

1. Page 2, Fig. 1: In this figure are marked 3 points. Why???

Corrected

1. Page 4, line 151: “…main cations (Са2+, Mg2+, К+, Na+), Si, alkalinity (Alk), SO42-, Сl-, color(Col), organic matter content (OMC), total nitrogen (ТN) and its forms (NO3- and NH4+), total phosphorus ТР and РО43-…”. How were determined these parameters???

Corrected

1. Page 7, line 241: “It was revealed that there was an increase…”. How can be explained this variation???

Added

This is due to geochemical features (the prevalence of local laporite deposits) at this point

1. Page 13, References: The number of references is quite low.

Corrected

Also, we contacted a translation agency MDPI.

We hope the text meets the requirements

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf