Analysis of TDS and Heavy Metal Pollution Characteristics in Groundwater of Typical Antimony Mining Areas in Hunan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Analysis of TDS and Heavy Metal Pollution Characteristics in Groundwater of Typical Antimony Mining Areas in Hunan" is a very interesting research paper describing the behavior of heavy metals in aquatic ecosystems near mining enterprises in Hunan Province. Particularly interesting are the interpretation options for the obtained values, their relationships, the use of models and the establishment of correlations, heavy metals in the tested samples. In addition, the in-depth introduction with a suitable description of the problem and the studied area is particularly well prepared. However, there are some issues that need to be discussed before possible publication. Below are some general comments:

For better perception of the work, I would like to suggest that the authors add a table with specific values ​​of the concentration of the elements determined in the work.

In particular, in the section "Correlation Analysis Between TDS and Indicator Heavy Metals", the authors simply rewrite in words what is already visible in Table 12. It is necessary to add a detailed description of the obtained results of the correlation coefficient calculation, as well as conclusions that describe the established relationships.

Also in the "Conclusions" section, the authors need to more clearly describe the results obtained with clearly established relationships and probable factors that preceded this.

The question arises as to why the authors did not establish the content of iron as the main component of the waters studied.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is “Analysis of TDS and Heavy Metal Pollution Characteristics in Groundwater of Typical Antimony Mining Areas in Hunan” (water-3303037). Some detailed comments are as follows:

(1) Abstract: The research objective of this manuscript is unclear.

(2) Abstract: The author did not explain the pollution characteristics of heavy metals clearly. In addition, the content of groundwater pollution remediation is missing.

(3) Introduction: The research background is not detailed enough, and the problems that need to be solved are unclear.

(4) Chapters 1 to 3 (1. Overview of the Study Area, 2. Sample Collection and Testing Methods, and 3. Statistical Characteristic Analysis of TDS) are suggested to be merged into the Materials and Methods chapter.

(5) Chapters 4 (Evaluation of Heavy Metal Pollution in Groundwater of the Mining Area) and 5 (Correlation Analysis Between TDS and Indicator Heavy Metals) are suggested to be merged under the Results and Discussion section.

(6) There is a lack of comparative analysis with current research references here.

(7) The content of shortcomings and prospects is missing.

(8) Conclusions: The conclusions need to be further summarized, which only retain the content with important findings.

(9) The format of Table 4 does not meet the requirements of the journal.

(10) Tables 1, 2 and 7 should be avoided from being distributed on two pages.

(11) The format of the references did not meet the requirements of the journal.

(12) A proof reading by a native English speaker should be carefully conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript needs improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the author has revised the manuscript, I believe it still does not meet the requirements of the journal. 

(1) The figures and tables do not fully correspond to the text.

(2) The conclusion does not focus on the key points of the research.

(3) The format of the references was not modified according to the requirements of the journal.

(4) Poor English language expression cannot be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language still cannot meet the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf