Analysis of Factors and Mechanisms Influencing the Matric Suction and Water-Holding Capacity of Carbonate Saline Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCOMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:
In this study, to explore the factors influencing matrix suction characteristics, this paper uses the filter paper method to measure the matrix suction of soil samples in two aspects: compaction degree and salt content. The topic of this study is interesting. However, the analysis of this manuscript needs to be further improved. And some questions or concerns also exist in present manuscript.
1. Abstract: The author introduces the test results in terms of the compaction degree and salt content. However, further quantitative conclusions and guidance are recommended to be added to the abstract.
2. The abbreviation 'CL' in Table 1 should be explained when it first appears.
3. The method used to determine the content of soil components should be mentioned.
4. The authors have analyzed the test results. However, the high dispersion in the geotechnical test data should be acknowledged, and the deviation for each test group should be mentioned. The relative research works were listed for reference:
Visualized direct shear test of the interface between gravelly sand and concrete pipe. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2024, 61: 361-374. DOI:10.1139/cgj-2022-0007
Evaluation of the treatment variables on the shear strength of MICP-treated loess. Journal of Mountain Science, 2024, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-024-9100-3
5. How can the salt crystals and soil particle components in Figure 12 be distinguished? Was the sample dried?
In view of the above comments, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, and authors need to revise the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind reviews of our manuscript entitled “Analysis of factors and mechanisms influencing the matrix suction and water-holding capacity of carbonate saline soil”. Special thanks to your good comments and suggestions, and we are deeply impressed by your conscientious, rigorous, high–efficiency and responsible attitude towards the evaluation work. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
Under the guidance your comments, we have carefully and extensively revised and polished our manuscript. Revisions in the paper have been marked in red. We hope that the corrections will meet with approval and look forward to hearing from you for any further consideration. A point to–point response is provided below.
In this study, to explore the factors influencing matrix suction characteristics, this paper uses the filter paper method to measure the matrix suction of soil samples in two aspects: compaction degree and salt content. The topic of this study is interesting. However, the analysis of this manuscript needs to be further improved. And some questions or concerns also exist in present manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. Your comments are very helpful to improve the level of the manuscript. We will answer your questions one-on-one.
Comment 1: Abstract: The author introduces the test results in terms of the compaction degree and salt content. However, further quantitative conclusions and guidance are recommended to be added to the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much of your professional comments. We are deeply aware of the shortcomings of the abstract, and based on your valuable suggestions, we have revised the abstract by adding qualitative descriptions of the effects of compaction degree and salt content on matrix suction. The revisions are as below:
Line 14-23, page1.
The results show that the compaction degree and salt content significantly influence the matrix suction in the absorbed film regime (water content=14%-22%). Specifically, the matrix suction and water-holding capacity of the soil increased significantly when the compaction degree increased from 85% to 95%, and the matrix suction of the soil showed a pattern of increasing and then decreasing as the salt content increased from 0 to 2%, with the threshold value of the salt content being 1.2%. In addition, the relationship between salt content and bound water content was obtained by modifying the Gardner model, which was fitted with high accuracy. The results show that the bound water content increased from 1.34% to 11.57% and then decreased to 1.80% with the increasing salt content, which verified the effect of salt content on matrix suction capacity.
Comment 2: The abbreviation 'CL' in Table 1 should be explained when it first appears.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful comment. The abbreviation “CL” has been explained in the article, and we apologize for any reading misunderstandings! The explainations are highlighted in the article:
Line 129, page 3.
soil sample is named as low liquid limit clay (CL)
Comment 3: The method used to determine the content of soil components should be mentioned.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. We have added descriptions of methods for determining the components of soil samples according to your suggestion. The revisions are as below:
Line 117-127, page 3.
The particle size composition of the soil samples is obtained by LPSA (Laser particle size analysis) test, the principle of this method is to utilize the scattering effect of particles on the parallel beam[20], the parallel light from the laser is irradiated to the soil particles, followed by the scattering phenomenon, and then based on the principle that the scatter-ing angle is proportional to the particle diameter inversely, the photoelectric signals re-ceived by the receiver will be converted into the particle size composition of the sample. The results obtained are shown in Figure 2. The content of clay particles in the soil can be calculated from the particle size distribution curve in Figure 2 as 41.64%
The dispersion of the geotechnical test data is relatively high[21], and to eliminate the deviation of each test group, the physical indexes of the soil sample were obtained by us-ing multiple sets of tests.
Comment 4: The authors have analyzed the test results. However, the high dispersion in the geotechnical test data should be acknowledged, and the deviation for each test group should be mentioned. The relative research works were listed for reference:
Visualized direct shear test of the interface between gravelly sand and concrete pipe. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2024, 61: 361-374. DOI:10.1139/cgj-2022-0007
Evaluation of the treatment variables on the shear strength of MICP-treated loess. Journal of Mountain Science, 2024, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-024-9100-3
Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, we have added some references in the article, and added some words of explanation (But there is something wrong with the DOI link you provided for the second reference, so we can't find this article). The additions are listed below:
Line 65-66, page 2, the added references are [12,13].
and salinity is a critical factor in meeting the environmental challenges in saline areas [12,13].
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [20].
The particle size composition of the soil samples is obtained by LPSA (Laser particle size analysis) test, the principle of this method is to utilize the scattering effect of particles on the parallel beam [20], the parallel light from the laser is irradiated to the soil particles, followed by the scattering phenomenon, and then based on the principle that the scattering angle is proportional to the particle diameter inversely, the photoelectric signals received by the receiver will be converted into the particle size composition of the sample.
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [21].
The dispersion of the geotechnical test data is relatively high[21], and to eliminate the deviation of each test group, the physical indexes of the soil sample were obtained by using multiple sets of tests.
Line 329, page 10, the added references are [29,30].
which is in keeping with the conclusions of many scholars[29,30].
Line 374-375, page 11, the added references is [33].
which is consistent with the conclusions of Zhao et al [33].
Line 379-381, page 11, the added references is [34].
Huang et al.[34] also concluded that salinity can change the soil porosity, which in turn affects the water-holding capacity of saline soil.
Comment 5: How can the salt crystals and soil particle components in Figure 12 be distinguished? Was the sample dried?
Response: Thank you very much for your questions! The soil used for the study in this paper was washed and salted with varying amounts of NaHCO3-, so the soil is relatively homogeneous. In the SEM images, the places where salt crystals appear are white and bright, and the salt crystals will attach to the soil particles or fill in the pores and act as bonding, so it is obvious that the part of the pores that can be seen to be filled are salt crystals. We have included a brief description in the article:
Line 420-421, page 13.
the precipitated salt crystals attach to and fill in between soil particles.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript authored by Shan et al. investigates the effects of compaction degree and salinity on the matrix suction of clayey soil from Jilin, China. The authors begin with a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms about the changes in matrix suction, subsequently concentrating on the highly pertinent relationship between matrix suction and water-holding capacity. This manuscript is well-researched and clearly articulated, making it suitable for acceptance with minor revisions. Several specific observations are provided for consideration.
1. The data presented in the two rows of 'Content' and 'Method' in Table 2 appear to be somewhat disorganized and do not align with one another. So, Table 2 should be appropriately adjusted for ease of reading.
2. There is a spelling error in Figure 4 where 'absorbed' is written as 'aborbed', which should be corrected.
3. Most of the references cited in the paper are from earlier years, and there are relatively few citations for new research. Consequently, it is essential to appropriately increase the citation of papers that have conducted similar studies in more recent years.
4. Section 2.2: This section does not mention what method is used to prepare the soil samples, whether it is static compaction method or other methods, which should be explained in the paper.
5. Section 2.2: The reason for selecting the compaction degrees around 90% is not mentioned in this section. What principle is this based on and should be explained in the paper.
6. Section 3.3: Clayey soil with high montmorillonite content is mentioned, but there is no Table in the paper to provide the clay mineral content of the soil samples.
7. Section 3.3: In this section, it is mentioned that clay with high montmorillonite content will lower the Atterberg limit, thereby reducing the thickness of the double diffusion layer. In Figure 9b and Figure 10, the matrix suction initially showed a decreasing trend, indicating that the double diffusion layer had thickened. This contradicts the previous discussion and requires an explanation.
8. In the paper, not only does the term 'compaction degree' appear, but also 'degree of compaction'. The expression of the term 'compaction degree' should be unified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind reviews of our manuscript entitled “Analysis of factors and mechanisms influencing the matrix suction and water-holding capacity of carbonate saline soil”. Special thanks to your good comments and suggestions, and we are deeply impressed by your conscientious, rigorous, high–efficiency and responsible attitude towards the evaluation work. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
Under the guidance your comments, we have carefully and extensively revised and polished our manuscript. Revisions in the paper have been marked in red. We hope that the corrections will meet with approval and look forward to hearing from you for any further consideration. A point to–point response is provided below.
The manuscript authored by Shan et al. investigates the effects of compaction degree and salinity on the matrix suction of clayey soil from Jilin, China. The authors begin with a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms about the changes in matrix suction, subsequently concentrating on the highly pertinent relationship between matrix suction and water-holding capacity. This manuscript is well-researched and clearly articulated, making it suitable for acceptance with minor revisions. Several specific observations are provided for consideration.
Response: Thank you very much for your recognition and affirmation of our work. Your comments are very helpful to improve the level of the manuscript. We will answer your questions one-on-one.
Comment 1: The data presented in the two rows of 'Content' and 'Method' in Table 2 appear to be somewhat disorganized and do not align with one another. So, Table 2 should be appropriately adjusted for ease of reading.
Response: Thank you very much of your helpful suggestion. According to your suggestion. We have made revisions to Table 2, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you in reading it! The revisions are as below:
Line 131-132, page3-4.
Comment 2: There is a spelling error in Figure 4 where 'absorbed' is written as 'aborbed', which should be corrected.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. We are very sorry for the error, after careful examination, we have made changes to Figure 4, the revision is as below:
Line 213-214, page 6.
Figure 4. The soil-water characteristic curve of saline soil in the study area.
Comment 3: Most of the references cited in the paper are from earlier years, and there are relatively few citations for new research. Consequently, it is essential to appropriately increase the citation of papers that have conducted similar studies in more recent years.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, we have added some references in the article, and added some words of explanation. The additions are listed below:
Line 65-66, page 2, the added references are [12,13].
and salinity is a critical factor in meeting the environmental challenges in saline areas [12,13].
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [20].
The particle size composition of the soil samples is obtained by LPSA (Laser particle size analysis) test, the principle of this method is to utilize the scattering effect of particles on the parallel beam [20], the parallel light from the laser is irradiated to the soil particles, followed by the scattering phenomenon, and then based on the principle that the scattering angle is proportional to the particle diameter inversely, the photoelectric signals received by the receiver will be converted into the particle size composition of the sample.
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [21].
The dispersion of the geotechnical test data is relatively high[21], and to eliminate the deviation of each test group, the physical indexes of the soil sample were obtained by using multiple sets of tests.
Line 329, page 10, the added references are [29,30].
which is in keeping with the conclusions of many scholars[29,30].
Line 374-375, page 11, the added references is [33].
which is consistent with the conclusions of Zhao et al [33].
Line 379-381, page 11, the added references is [34].
Huang et al.[34] also concluded that salinity can change the soil porosity, which in turn affects the water-holding capacity of saline soil.
Comment 4: Section 2.2: This section does not mention what method is used to prepare the soil samples, whether it is static compaction method or other methods, which should be explained in the paper.
Response: Thank you very much of your helpful comments. Based on your suggestions, we have explained the method of the preparation of the soil sample in the article, the revisions are listed below:
Line 169-171, page 5.
then put the weighed soil into the mold (61.8mm in diameter and 20mm in height), using a drop hammer to solidify the soil sample, so that the height of the soil sample meets the height of the mold, and subsequently take out the soil sample.
Comment 5: Section 2.2: The reason for selecting the compaction degrees around 90% is not mentioned in this section. What principle is this based on and should be explained in the paper.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we've added supplementary explanations for the selection of compaction degrees. The added supplementary explanations are listed below:
Line 144-147, page 4.
In practice, the compaction degree is mostly around 90%, to ensure the stability and bearing capacity of the foundation, the compaction degree of the fill foundation of clay soil should not be less than 0.93; the compaction degree of the fill foundation of silt and sand soil should not be less than 0.95.
Comment 6: Section 3.3: Clayey soil with high montmorillonite content is mentioned, but there is no Table in the paper to provide the clay mineral content of the soil samples.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we've added Table 3 to provide the mineral composition of the soil sample. The added Table is listed below:
Line 363-367, page 11.
Table 3. Mineral composition of the soil sample.
|
|
Primary mineral |
Secondary mineral |
|
Content (%) |
88% |
12% |
The soil sample has a high content of primary minerals in mineral composition, and secondary minerals are mainly dominated by clay minerals with a content of 12% (Table 3).
Comment 7: Section 3.3: In this section, it is mentioned that clay with high montmorillonite content will lower the Atterberg limit, thereby reducing the thickness of the double diffusion layer. In Figure 9b and Figure 10, the matrix suction initially showed a decreasing trend, indicating that the double diffusion layer had thickened. This contradicts the previous discussion and requires an explanation.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind comments. But the article mentions that the Atterberg limit decreases the saturated thickness of the bound water film, and that increasing the salt from 0 to 1.2% increases the thickness of the bound water film, which are not contradictory, and I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have caused you.
Comment 8: In the paper, not only does the term 'compaction degree' appear, but also 'degree of compaction'. The expression of the term 'compaction degree' should be unified.
Response: Thank you very much for your careful suggestions, we have made the same statement about compaction degree in the article, and we promise to be more rigorous in our subsequent research!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript, based on the filter paper method, the matrix suction measurement results of the saline soil with different compaction degrees and salt contents are explored. In addition, to further verify the effect of salt content on the matrix suction, the Gardner model was modified and the measured values of the matrix suction of the soil samples.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field, a gap in knowledge is identified, new modification of the Gardner model is proposed, conclusions are supported by research findings.
The scientific impact of the manuscript is average - the limitations of research are not mentioned (the conclusion (5) has some signs of limitations of the research - it should be expanded), subchapter "Discussions" is not created in that subchapter should be comparison with other scholars results.
Impersonal mood should be used in line 458.
The cited references has only few recent publications (within the last 5 years).
Some newer articles could be added :
Zhang, X.; Zuo, Y.; Wang, T.; Han, Q. Salinity Effects on Soil Structure and Hydraulic Properties: Implications for Pedotransfer Functions in Coastal Areas. Land 2024, 13, 2077. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122077
Qiankun Tan, Huo, S., Wang, D. et al. Hysteresis of Water Retention Curve of the Capillarimetric Diapason in Saline Soils. Eurasian Soil Sc. 57, 1217–1230 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229323603426
Reference [26] Zhang, Y. et al., 2022. Prediction of landslide displacement with dynamic features using intelligent approaches. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 32, 539-549.
This paper proposes a dynamic prediction method for landslide displacement based on the GRU neural network and CEEMDAN. The mentioned paper has no information about suction as is written in the manuscript Line 40-41.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind reviews of our manuscript entitled “Analysis of factors and mechanisms influencing the matrix suction and water-holding capacity of carbonate saline soil”. Special thanks to your good comments and suggestions, and we are deeply impressed by your conscientious, rigorous, high–efficiency and responsible attitude towards the evaluation work. These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
Under the guidance your comments, we have carefully and extensively revised and polished our manuscript. Revisions in the paper have been marked in red. We hope that the corrections will meet with approval and look forward to hearing from you for any further consideration. A point to–point response is provided below.
The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field, a gap in knowledge is identified, new modification of the Gardner model is proposed, conclusions are supported by research findings.
Response: Thank you very much for your recognition and affirmation of our work. Your comments are very helpful to improve the level of the manuscript. We will answer your questions one-on-one.
Comment 1: The scientific impact of the manuscript is average - the limitations of research are not mentioned (the conclusion (5) has some signs of limitations of the research - it should be expanded).
Response: Thank you very much of your professional comment on our study’s limitations. According to your comment, we have added explanations on the limitations of the paper in terms of influencing factors, application fields, etc. The revisions are as below:
Line 500-510, page15.
This paper quantitatively analyzed the influencing factors of matrix suction and water-holding capacity of saline soils, which can provide some theoretical references for practical engineering, but the salt content and compaction degree discussed in this paper are not all the factors affecting matrix suction, and the magnitude of matrix suction ultimately depends on the thickness of the pore water film. Therefore, in the field of saline soil improvement and agricultural irrigation, soil type, region, temperature, freeze-thaw cycle and other factors may affect the matrix suction of soil in the actual environment. In future research, more attention will be paid to the strength, deformation and other properties of saline soils, to grasp the mechanical properties of saline soils more comprehensively, and apply them to the field of saline soil improvement and improve its significance in practical engineering.
Comment 2: subchapter "Discussions" is not created in that subchapter should be comparison with other scholars results.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. We are well aware of the shortcomings of the article, although there is no “Discussions” subchapter in the article, we have placed the results and discussion together as the “Results and discussion” subchapter, and based on your valuable suggestions, we have added some references in this section to compare the conclusions obtained with other scholars. The added contents are listed below:
Line 329, page 10, the added references are [29,30].
which is in keeping with the conclusions of many scholars[29,30].
Line 374-375, page 11, the added references is [33].
which is consistent with the conclusions of Zhao et al [33].
Line 379-381, page 11, the added references is [34].
Huang et al.[34] also concluded that salinity can change the soil porosity, which in turn affects the water-holding capacity of saline soil.
Comment 3: Impersonal mood should be used in line 458.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind comments. We have revised line 458 according to your suggestion, and removed the impersonal mood. The revisions are as below:
Line 462, page 14.
Thus, the effect of salt content on the matrix suction of saline soil is essential.
Comment 4: The cited references has only few recent publications (within the last 5 years).Some newer articles could be added :
Zhang, X.; Zuo, Y.; Wang, T.; Han, Q. Salinity Effects on Soil Structure and Hydraulic Properties: Implications for Pedotransfer Functions in Coastal Areas. Land 2024, 13, 2077. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122077
Qiankun Tan, Huo, S., Wang, D. et al. Hysteresis of Water Retention Curve of the Capillarimetric Diapason in Saline Soils. Eurasian Soil Sc. 57, 1217–1230 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229323603426
Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, we have added some references in the article, and added some words of explanation. The additions are listed below:
Line 65-66, page 2, the added references are [12,13].
and salinity is a critical factor in meeting the environmental challenges in saline areas [12,13].
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [20].
The particle size composition of the soil samples is obtained by LPSA (Laser particle size analysis) test, the principle of this method is to utilize the scattering effect of particles on the parallel beam [20], the parallel light from the laser is irradiated to the soil particles, followed by the scattering phenomenon, and then based on the principle that the scattering angle is proportional to the particle diameter inversely, the photoelectric signals received by the receiver will be converted into the particle size composition of the sample.
Line 119, page 3, the added references is [21].
The dispersion of the geotechnical test data is relatively high[21], and to eliminate the deviation of each test group, the physical indexes of the soil sample were obtained by using multiple sets of tests.
Line 329, page 10, the added references are [29,30].
which is in keeping with the conclusions of many scholars[29,30].
Line 374-375, page 11, the added references is [33].
which is consistent with the conclusions of Zhao et al [33].
Line 379-381, page 11, the added references is [34].
Huang et al.[34] also concluded that salinity can change the soil porosity, which in turn affects the water-holding capacity of saline soil.
Comment 5: Reference [26] Zhang, Y. et al., 2022. Prediction of landslide displacement with dynamic features using intelligent approaches. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 32, 539-549.
This paper proposes a dynamic prediction method for landslide displacement based on the GRU neural network and CEEMDAN. The mentioned paper has no information about suction as is written in the manuscript Line 40-41.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. We are sorry for the error we made in the article, we have removed this reference from the article and will be more rigorous in our future research, thanks again for the correction!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
