Impact of Red Sludge Dumps, Originating from Industrial Activity, on the Soil and Underground Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled ‘’ The impact of red sludge dumps, originating from industrial activity, on the soil and underground water’’, is an interesting topic with valuable finding. However, there are some small needs to be corrected.

The abstract is well-structured.

Introduction

Merge too many small paragraphs into some large paragraphs! For example, lines 48-67 can be merged into one single paragraph.

Line 71: 402,551 m2 ->  ‘’2’’ in ‘’m2’’ should be superscript. Check it across the text.

Line 112: t m-3 -> ‘’-3’’ should be superscript.

Line 126: Na2C03 -> Please check the number of chemical formulas. Do you mean Na2CO3? If yes ‘’2’’ and ‘’3’’ should be subscript

All Figures (from 4 to 18): 1) Why there is not any significant sign on columns? It’s NOT usual reporting amounts above the column. So, please replace them with statistical signs to give readers better scientific soundness. 2) Moreover, couldn’t you merge some of these figures into one? 18 figures are too much! 3) Please define the used abbreviations in the caption of the figures 4) Please replace these figures with more interesting ones!

The discussion needs a little bit to be extended. Also, add this reference here that fits with your scope: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912983

Merge all paragraphs in the conclusion. It should be a single paragraph.

 

Good luck! 

Author Response

In the attachment I have uploaded the answer that clarifies the observations sent by you. Thanks for the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Environmental pollution is an important problem in the ecological and geochemical field of knowledge. First of all, it concerns natural waters. Moreover, many dumps and sludge storages are spread all over the world. Unfortunately, there is often no control over the state of the natural waters of the area. Therefore, the topicality and occurrence of the problem raised is beyond doubt.

The study is based on data on the composition of soil and groundwater. The introduction provides evidence of the topicality of the research, general information about the dumps, and a short history of their creation.

The "Materials and Methods" section begins with a description of the size of the dumps and their location. It should be noted that the article critically lacks a graphical representation of the materials. A scheme of dumps with the location of sampling points should be added. In addition, it is necessary to add maps of the study area. Chapter 2.2 "Location of the red sludge dump" mentions a river, but without a map it is not possible to find out how the dumps are located in relation to the river. Is there a hydraulic connection between the studied groundwater and the river? If possible, it would be good to add a section with the location of the dumps and the aquifers.

The article contains data on the chemical composition (107 – 109 lines), grain sizes (110 – 113 lines), a little information about mineral composition (129 – 132 lines). It is necessary to add information about the methods by which these data were obtained, as well as about the samples that were examined. In addition, the question of the formation of secondary mineral phases in the dump is very interesting.

The "Results" section presents data on the content of aluminum, iron, sulfates in soils and groundwater, as well as sodium and the value of f in groundwater. All data are presented twice. The data of tables 3, 4, 5 are duplicated in figures 4 – 18. The double presentation of data is redundant and, in addition, is usually prohibited by the journal guidelines. In addition, there is a question about the Fig. 14 – 15. What does "Val admisa" mean? This section of the article lacks a description of the results.

Most of the text in section 4 is a summary of the tables and figures in section 3, but not a discussion. At the same time, the unexpectedly high contents of sulfate in the upper soil layer at points P3 and P4 in Fig. 6 are not commented. The large difference in iron content in soils, shown in Figure 7, also needs to be explained.

Lines 358 – 362: "The analysis of the values of the quality parameters of the sludge highlighted the presence of the vegetative layer created spontaneously, partially, on the surface of the dump; it contributes to a mitigation of the change in the content of iron, aluminum, sulfates and pH as a result of their possible metabolism by plants [21]." Please explain what "values of the quality parameters" you mean. I did not find information on water quality assessment in the manuscript.

Lines 369 - 378 show data from monitoring studies 2005 - 2018, but these data were also not mentioned earlier in the article. Thus, it is not possible to understand on the basis of what data these conclusions are based. The discussion section should be carefully reviewed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

In the attachment I have uploaded the answer that clarifies the observations sent by you. Thanks for the suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript provided by Mintas and colleagues, the impact of red sludge dumps which originating from industrial activity has been assessed on the soil and underground water. In my opinion, although this article contains new aspects, the manuscript can be accepted with major revisions at Water.

 

- English writing needs further polish.

- Abstract should be contained some quantitative results/findings.

- The section of "materials & methods" is not well organized and it does not the sufficient solidarity. Therefore, the structure and logic of the materials & methods need to be modified.

- Figures 4 to 18 must be deleted. Same results are presented in tables 3 to 5.

- Quality of the discussion section must be improved. In so doing, the authors must be organized the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then practice and avoid repetition from the introduction.

- The "literature review" section of the manuscript is poor. It is necessary to compare the results of the present study with previous similar studies.

- Limitations of the study must be presented in the conclusion section.

- For numbers in text and tables < 1.00, use three digits beyond the decimal point; for numbers between 1.00 and 9.99 use two digits beyond the decimal point; for numbers between 10.0 and 99.9, use one digit beyond the decimal point; and for concentrations ≥ 100, use the nearest whole number.

 

Author Response

In the attachment I have uploaded the answer that clarifies the observations sent by you. Thanks for the suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would suggest changing the captions in Figures 7-11. In their present form, they are hard to read. As an option, you can make the labels for the blue columns in blue, and for the red line, make them in red.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript has addressed my concerns and I agree with its publication after minor revision in Water.

- Due to the similar data have been presented in Tables 3 & 4, therefore, figures 2 to 11 must be deleted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx