Estimation of Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Water of Urban Lakes in the Russian Arctic (Murmansk)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article proposed ("Estimation of heavy metal concentrations in the water of urban 2 lakes in the Russian Arctic (Murmansk)") presents an extensive study about heavy metals and other elements. The authors considered several elements and studied their vertical and seasonal behaviour, considering the sources that could contribute for different chemical compositions of those elements. Althoug this work did not respresent a great novelty in scientific terms, I think it may be useful, not only by the data presented, but also by correlation that the authors make with the possible sources of contamination and the justifications/explanantions presented.

I suggest the publication of this manuscript, after the correction of some minor questions:

-line 49: "conditionsin" or "conditions in"?

-please, replace "l" (refering liters) by "L"

-Table 2: Please, correct the significant algharisms. To avoid overlap of values, table should be presented in horizontal or in a smaller size.

-line 127: "p" should be in italic

-Fig. 4 and 5 should include error bars

-line 229: "2+" (in Mn) should appear in superscript

Author Response

См вложение

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Estimation of heavy metal concentrations in the water of urban lakes in the Russian Arctic (Murmansk)”, by M. Postevaya, Z. Slukovskii, V. Dauvalter and D. Bernadskaya addresses the heavy metal concentration in several urban lakes, and discusses the possible provenance of the metals as the result of urban and/or industrial pollution.

The subject is promising and deserves the effort, but the overall result is somewhat disappointing: the introduction is not very informative, and does not suffice to present the local problem withing the context of similar regional water bodies. In fact, the reference to other, potentially relevant areas for comparison (Finland, Sweden, even the USA) is presented unconnected to the local Murmansk problem, and the reader gets confused regarding how those locales can illustrate the problem being considered.

The description of the samples taken, and particularly the criteria that guided sampling, could be greatly improved, for example in the light of the hydrological behaviour and hydrogeochemical characteristics of the lakes, and the analytical techniques employed should be briefly described beyond the mere reference to the standard methods for water analysis from the literature.

Presentation of results could also be greatly improved. Full analytical results for individual samples should be made available (even if as supplementary files) such that other authors working elsewhere can compare results, and the discussion of the meaning of the values obtained should be expanded to consider potential sources, pathways and processes (that may require analysis not only of the waters, but also of the source materials and intervening reservoirs as well). While seasonal differences in heavy metal content are acknowledged, these are not properly studied or discussed.

Finally, calculation and meaning of WPIreg needs to be properly explained.

Overall, the subject of study is of general interest, and the manuscript will eventually deserve to be published, but in order to be of use for other researcher, it needs to be greatly improved first.

Some additional comments, referred to specific parts of the manuscript follow:

Title: First word of title is “Estimation”. In L10, however, it is stated that the article presents the results of actual analyses, so no need to make estimates. I suggest changing the title accordingly.

L46, and elsewhere in the text: … “exceedance …” is a correct English term, but not frequently used. I suggest replacing it by “excess of”, or other appropriate forms depending on the context.

L47: The mention to Lulea, Sweden, seems unsupported. I understand that the authors aim to compare with neighbouring regions, but some background is required …

L49-50: “… the fixation of pollutants in precipitation due to …”. “Precipitation” is a term usually employed as synonym of “rain fall”, and I do not think that’s what the authors mean here. If I understand correctly, reducing conditions result in formation of solid sulphides, that settle down to the bottom …

L85: Delete the initials in “Alekin O.A.”.

L89: The “Hydrocarbon” class must be an error. Probably the authors mean “Ca-bicarbonate (HCO₃^-) class”.

Table 1: The length of the coastline is the “perimeter” of the lake, and the “length of the lake” must be its “maximum” length …

L95: A bathometer (bathymeter) is a device for measuring water depth, not a sampling device. I do not know what the authors used (perhaps a Bailer sampler?)

L100: Heavy metal content is measured (not evaluated) by ICP mass spectrometry.

Table 2: Some columns are chopped. Probably need to place the table in landscape form.

Figure 2: The correlation equation is incomplete. Probably a “+” sign is missing.

L162: Don’t think that concentrations of Fe were “fixed”; probably the authors meant to say the concentrations of Fe … that were found, measured, determined, …

L172: A rate is the variation of certain parameter over time. I think the authors mean “values, contents, …”.

L187: Same as above.

L199: Same as above.

L202, heading for Table 3: “border zones” should be replaced by “neighbouring” zones of …

L238-256; Assessment of the environmental state of water bodies: It is not clear to me the relevance of calculated WPIreg. If only elements with Ci > RMPCi are used, the result will always be >1, so always polluted!

L300-304: References [6] and [7] are not cited in the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf