Innovative Fly-Ash-Based Soil Crust Rehabilitation: Enhancing Wind Erosion Resistance in Gravel-Layered Desert Mining Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Under natural conditions in arid ecosystems, biological soil crusts are called protectors of the soil. They protect it from erosion and create habitats for other organisms that stabilise the functioning of ecological systems. The paper is experimental with applied characteristics and is within the scope of the journal's thematic areas.

I will make my comments below.
1. Avoid using the exact words in the title and keywords.
2. The introduction should be supplemented with work from other regions. In the 1970s, a similar attempt was made in the Amudara River Valley.
3) This objective related to the microscope is not well explained; what should it be about?

4. Line 84 should be called "Study area", and a separate section should be soil collecting

5. Change to Table 2 shows the selected chemical composition of fly ash.

6. Standardize units according to the SI system.

7. The experimental approaches should be prepared as point and stage by stage. Now, it isn't clear. Figure 2 is not eligible and unreadable.

The study results are presented generally correctly (apart from illegible figures).  The problem arises in the Discussion section. It is somewhat of a repetition of the results with broad explanations.  As mentioned above, the authors do not say any similar work involving soil stabilisation against erosion. This would need to be supplemented.
Therefore, the work is vital, and I ask the authors to add the elements mentioned in the review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your professional feedback on our manuscript. As you have pointed out, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Following your suggestions, we have made extensive revisions to the previous draft, and the specific corrections are highlighted in the revised version as follows:

Comments 1: Avoid using the exact words in the title and keywords.

Response 1: We agree with your point, as using the same terms in both the title and keywords can lead to redundancy in the article. Therefore, we have revised the keywords to ensure they no longer repeat the terms used in the title. The changes are located in the keywords section on page 1 of the revised manuscript, specifically in line 28.

Comments 2: The introduction should be supplemented with work from other regions. In the 1970s, a similar attempt was made in the Amudara River Valley.

Response 2: Thank you for your professional suggestion. Indeed, we did not introduce similar studies conducted in other regions in the introduction. We are very interested in the research related to the Amu Darya River Valley that you mentioned. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn from the successful practices in this region. However, we regret to inform you that we were unable to find relevant articles through our national databases. We apologize for this. Therefore, we have added references to works in other regions where fly ash was used to improve soil quality, providing relevant context and support for our research. The changes are located in the introduction section on page 2 of the revised manuscript, specifically in lines 59-64.

Comments 3: This objective related to the microscope is not well explained; what should it be about?

Response 3: Thank you for reviewing our article. In response to this issue, we have provided a more detailed explanation of the SEM objective. The aim of SEM is to investigate the microstructural mechanisms through which fly ash enhances the shear strength of gravel curtain soils, focusing on the microscopic structure of the soil. The changes are located in the Materials and Methods section on page 6 of the revised manuscript, specifically in lines 226-229.

Comments 4: Line 84 should be called "Study area", and a separate section should be soil collecting.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have added a description of the study area and have separated the soil collection process into its own distinct section. The changes are located in the Materials and Methods section on pages 2-3 of the revised manuscript, specifically in lines 86-104.

Comments 5: Change to Table 2 shows the selected chemical composition of fly ash.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree that the table title you provided better reflects the content of the table, and we have updated the table title accordingly in the manuscript. The changes are located in the Results section on page 7 of the revised manuscript, specifically in line 257.

Comments 6: Standardize units according to the SI system.

Response 6: Thank you for your careful review. We apologize for our oversight. Based on your comments, we have corrected the relevant sections throughout the manuscript to ensure consistent use of units. The changes are located in all the figures and tables on pages 4, 7-14, and 16 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 7: The experimental approaches should be prepared as point and stage by stage. Now, it isn't clear. Figure 2 is not eligible and unreadable.

Response 7: We apologize for the lack of completeness in the experimental methods section of our manuscript. In response to your feedback, we have made necessary improvements to this section. Additionally, we have added relevant labels to Figure 2 to enhance its readability. The changes are located in the Materials and Methods section on page 6, lines 210-229, and on page 3, line 121 of the revised manuscript.

We have made every effort to improve the manuscript. These changes do not affect the content or structure of the paper. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s professional suggestions and hope that the revised manuscript will be approved.

I hope you have a nice day!

Best Regards,

Author of this article.

12/12/2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Innovative Fly Ash-Based Soil Crust Rehabilitation: Enhancing Wind Erosion Resistance in Gravel-Layered Desert Mining Areas" clearly addresses the use of fly ash in exposed soils as a surface recovery method for gravel layers. The text is very clear, and the adopted methodology is coherent. The proposed topic is within the scope of the Land journal and presents results that are quite interesting to the scientific community. My recommendation is that the paper be accepted after some considerations, as follows:

 

I) Introduction: One of the major issues in coal mining is Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). The authors could include a paragraph explaining this topic, whether the study region suffers from this problem, and how this study could help mitigate AMD issues.

II) Figures 3, 4, and 6 need to have their font sizes enlarged for better reader comprehension.

III) The graphs in Figures 7 to 15 need to be improved for better reader understanding.

IV) The micrographs in Figures 17 and 18 need enhanced font sizes and collor for clearer understanding by the readers.

V) Fly ash has pozzolanic properties, meaning it hardens after a certain curing time. Was this factor considered? How long after development were the soils tested?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your professional feedback on our manuscript. As you have pointed out, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Following your suggestions, we have made extensive revisions to the previous draft, and the specific corrections are highlighted in the revised version as follows:

Comments 1: Introduction: One of the major issues in coal mining is Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). The authors could include a paragraph explaining this topic, whether the study region suffers from this problem, and how this study could help mitigate AMD issues.

Response 1: Thank you for your professional suggestion. Acid mine drainage is indeed an important environmental issue in coal mining. However, the main mining method in the Eastern Junggar Coalfield is open-pit mining, and due to the region's arid climate, the groundwater table is relatively low. Additionally, there are no significant amounts of sulfide minerals in the coal seams, so the Eastern Junggar Coalfield has not experienced similar issues. Based on your valuable feedback, we plan to conduct further research on acid mine drainage in the future. We will focus on optimizing treatment processes to ensure that the water meets irrigation standards, which will help alleviate the local water scarcity situation.

Comments 2: Figures 3, 4, and 6 need to have their font sizes enlarged for better reader comprehension.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback, and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused during your review due to the font size in the figures. In response, we have increased the font size in all the figures in the manuscript to ensure better readability. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on pages 4, 6–7, for all figures.

Comments 3: The graphs in Figures 7 to 15 need to be improved for better reader understanding.

Response 3: Thank you for your understanding, and we sincerely apologize once again for the issue. In response, we have modified the font size of the text in the corresponding figures. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on pages 8–14 for all figures.

Comments 4: The micrographs in Figures 17 and 18 need enhanced font sizes and color for clearer understanding by the readers.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have enhanced the font size. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 15 for all figures.

Comments 5: Fly ash has pozzolanic properties, meaning it hardens after a certain curing time. Was this factor considered? How long after development were the soils tested?

Response 5: Thank you for your thorough consideration of our manuscript. We have also taken this factor into account. We utilized the properties of fly ash to stabilize the soil and enhance its wind erosion resistance. During the curing process of the experimental soil samples, we followed the Chinese standard "Standard Test Methods for Soil" (GB/T 50123-2019), and the samples were cured under constant temperature and humidity for 24 hours. After curing, subsequent tests were conducted. We believe that over time, fly ash will further improve the strength of the soil.

We have made every effort to improve the manuscript. These changes do not affect the content or structure of the paper. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s professional suggestions and hope that the revised manuscript will be approved.

I hope you have a nice day!

Best Regards,

Author of this article.

12/12/2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written paper recommended for publication in this journal after minor revisions.

- The abstract clearly stated the essence of the problem you are addressing. Although recommendations based of the findings of the study were highlighted, research approaches used to obtain results were not summarized. Please revise.

- Experimental section requires a thorough revision. Table 1 and 2 should be presented under results section. Please describe in brief procedures for sample preparation and analysis using XRF, SEM and atomic absorption spectrometry.

-  Experimental approach depicted in Figure 3, is not a clear representation of approach followed in this study. Please revise.

- Conclusion statement should reflect the summary of key arguments of research findings, overall outcome of this study and recommendations and recommendations that contributes to the larger body of scientific knowledge. Please revise conclusion and outlook.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your professional feedback on our manuscript. As you have pointed out, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Following your suggestions, we have made extensive revisions to the previous draft, and the specific corrections are highlighted in the revised version as follows:

Comments 1: The abstract clearly stated the essence of the problem you are addressing. Although recommendations based of the findings of the study were highlighted, research approaches used to obtain results were not summarized. Please revise.

Response 1: Thank you for your professional suggestion. We indeed overlooked including the research methods used to obtain the results in the abstract. Based on your advice, we have added the relevant research methods, making the abstract more comprehensive. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript, on page 1, lines 15-20 in the abstract section.

Comments 2: Experimental section requires a thorough revision. Table 1 and 2 should be presented under results section. Please describe in brief procedures for sample preparation and analysis using XRF, SEM and atomic absorption spectrometry.

Response 2: Thank you for your meticulous review. We noticed that our manuscript was lacking some details on the experimental procedures. In the revised manuscript, we have added the experimental methods for XRF and SEM, as well as the sample preparation process. Additionally, we have moved the contents of Table 1 and Table 2 to the Results section to improve the overall structure of the article. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 6, lines 210-229 in the Materials and Methods section, and Tables 3 and 4 in the Results section.

Comments 3: Experimental approach depicted in Figure 3, is not a clear representation of approach followed in this study. Please revise.

Response 3: We sincerely apologize for the oversight in our manuscript. The experimental method described in Figure 3 differed slightly from the approach followed in this study. Therefore, we have made adjustments to Figure 3. The change can be found in the revised manuscript on page 4, in the Materials and Methods section, line 152.

Comments 4: Conclusion statement should reflect the summary of key arguments of research findings, overall outcome of this study and recommendations and recommendations that contributes to the larger body of scientific knowledge. Please revise conclusion and outlook.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Based on your feedback, we have reorganized this section to ensure that the conclusion reflects the key arguments, overall findings, and relevant recommendations. The changes are made in the revised manuscript in the conclusion section on page 18, lines 568-607.

We have made every effort to improve the manuscript. These changes do not affect the content or structure of the paper. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s professional suggestions and hope that the revised manuscript will be approved.

I hope you have a nice day!

Best Regards,

Author of this article.

12/12/2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript was reviewed in detail and based on my experience I make the following recommendations and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1.           In table 1 separate the units of the measured variable with a space, e.g. change Natural water content(%) to Natural water content (%); likewise do this in table 3.

2.           The next comment is more of a doubt, in line 125 you indicate that you use SEM, how were the samples used for the SEM analysis prepared or how were they prepared and on what basis is it determined that the microstructure of the soil was improved by the addition of fly ash?

3.           In figure 7 put the units of measurement in brackets after the variable, e.g. on the y-axis of figure 7a put Dry density (g cm^-3) and so on the other axes of both figures (7a and 7b). Make this observation in all the graphs of the manuscript.

4.           In different sections of your results for example line 199, line 231, line 347 among others the use of the term ‘Significant’, although this term describes a mathematical measure of the difference between your groups or treatments, throughout your manuscript there is no evidence that a statistical analysis has been performed, which should be indicated in the section of materials and methods that types of data analysis was performed, on the other hand in the results section only indicates the average values and it is necessary to indicate at least the standard error as well as the significance level in each of the graphs.

5.           The results shown in the discussion section related to chemical composition and microstructural analysis should be added to the results section.

6.           On the other hand, the ‘discussion’ section is deficient, in this section the results shown in the ‘Results’ section should be discussed one by one and compared with already published works, make a good use of the specialized literature on this subject and be able to make a proper discussion, I recommend restructuring completely the discussion section.

7.           As for the conclusions, I recommend restructuring them, as they seem to be a list of observations, in this section you should indicate whether the general objective of your research was met, then mention the main results (without being redundant in those previously written in the results section) and highlight the contributions or benefits of the results obtained.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your professional feedback on our manuscript. As you have pointed out, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Following your suggestions, we have made extensive revisions to the previous draft, and the specific corrections are highlighted in the revised version as follows:

Comments 1: In table 1 separate the units of the measured variable with a space, e.g. change Natural water content(%) to Natural water content (%); likewise do this in table 3.

Response 1: We sincerely apologize for the errors in the units presented in the article. In the revised manuscript, we have standardized the format of the units. The changes are located in all the figures and tables on pages 4, 7-14, and 16 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: The next comment is more of a doubt, in line 125 you indicate that you use SEM, how were the samples used for the SEM analysis prepared or how were they prepared and on what basis is it determined that the microstructure of the soil was improved by the addition of fly ash?

Response 2: We sincerely apologize for the missing sections in the article. Based on your suggestion, we have added the experimental procedures and sample preparation processes for microscopic experiments such as SEM, making this section more complete. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 6, lines 210-229 in the Materials and Methods section. Regarding how to determine that fly ash improves the soil structure, we found that the hydration reaction of fly ash produces cementitious products that can bond soil particles and fill larger pores within the soil, thereby enhancing the strength of the soil.

Comments 3: In figure 7 put the units of measurement in brackets after the variable, e.g. on the y-axis of figure 7a put Dry density (g cm-3) and so on the other axes of both figures (7a and 7b). Make this observation in all the graphs of the manuscript.

Response 3: We sincerely apologize for this mistake. We have made the necessary revisions to all the figures and tables in the manuscript where such issues occurred. The changes can be found in the revised manuscript on pages 4, 7-14, and 16, in all the figures and tables.

Comments 4: In different sections of your results for example line 199, line 231, line 347 among others the use of the term ‘Significant’, although this term describes a mathematical measure of the difference between your groups or treatments, throughout your manuscript there is no evidence that a statistical analysis has been performed, which should be indicated in the section of materials and methods that types of data analysis was performed, on the other hand in the results section only indicates the average values and it is necessary to indicate at least the standard error as well as the significance level in each of the graphs.

Response 4: Thank you for your meticulous review. We acknowledge that we overlooked this aspect and initially plotted the data using only the average values, which lacked reliability. Based on your suggestion, we have added a description of the standard deviation and standard error in the data processing section to ensure that the mean values are more representative. The changes are reflected in the revised manuscript on pages 5-7 in the Materials and Methods section (lines 186-189, 202-205, 241-243). Additionally, we have applied the standard error processing to the relevant figures, with changes made in the Results section on pages 10, 12, and 14 (lines 313, 369, 411).

Comments 5: The results shown in the discussion section related to chemical composition and microstructural analysis should be added to the results section.

Response 5: Thank you for your professional suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have adjusted this section by moving the results of the micro-experiments to the Results section, which has improved the logical flow of the article. The changes are reflected in the revised manuscript on pages 14-15 in the Results section (lines 414-449).

Comments 6: On the other hand, the ‘discussion’ section is deficient, in this section the results shown in the ‘Results’ section should be discussed one by one and compared with already published works, make a good use of the specialized literature on this subject and be able to make a proper discussion, I recommend restructuring completely the discussion section.

Response 6: Thank you for your professional suggestion. We acknowledge that the Discussion section in our article was relatively insufficient. Based on your advice, we have reorganized the Discussion section to correspond directly with the Results section and included comparisons with previous research findings from other scholars. The changes are reflected in the revised manuscript on pages 16-18 in the Discussion section, specifically in lines 472-567.

Comments 7: As for the conclusions, I recommend restructuring them, as they seem to be a list of observations, in this section you should indicate whether the general objective of your research was met, then mention the main results (without being redundant in those previously written in the results section) and highlight the contributions or benefits of the results obtained.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Based on your feedback, we have reorganized this section to ensure that the conclusion reflects the key arguments, overall findings, and relevant recommendations. The changes are made in the revised manuscript in the conclusion section on page 18, lines 568-607.

We have made every effort to improve the manuscript. These changes do not affect the content or structure of the paper. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s professional suggestions and hope that the revised manuscript will be approved.

I hope you have a nice day!

Best Regards,

Author of this article.

12/12/2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all my comments and  I am satisfied.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the authors' corrections, the paper may be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, thank you for considering the comments and I hope they have been very useful to you.