Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very clear and well-explained approach for the field of REE and for all minerals presenting complex chemistry.

It is a valuable contribution . Thus,  the subject, analyses, results, and their interpretation are highly appropriate and will be valued by readers of the journal. The manuscript is well organized and well written. The methods and results are nicely presented. The treatment and interpretation of the results, referencing to published work, is of a high standard. Overall, It focuses on an alternative way of approaching a delicate analytical field and gives a novel model in performing quantitative analysis. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we appreciate your comments on the Manuscript and are glad that you found it a valuable contribution.

Thank you for your review.

Kind regards

Alicja

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor-moderate revisions (see attached file) are recommended

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have taken on board your recommendations and improved the manuscript accordingly.

Kind regards

Alicja

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study is about an application of SEM EDS-WDS in quantitative microanalysis of REE-bearing, complex minerals such as chevkinite, which is a useful alternative to electron probe microanalysis, especially when EMPA is not readily available. The peak overlaps in the EDS spectrum were discussed. The authors also detailed the practical procedure or protocol for sample preparation and instrument operation, including well-polished sample surface, measurement of electron beam current, evaluation of EDS spectrum for qualitative assignments of X-ray lines, use of WDS for severely overlapped peaks and trace elements, etc.

 

In addition to the following comments, there are numerous comments and modifications in the attached Microsoft Word file, which was converted from the PDF file. To see a clean copy of the modified manuscript, select “Simple Markup” under the menu “Review”.

 

Lines 188-190: Change “The spectrometer uses the crystal to focus the beam into the detectors thus, it has no optics and is far less sensitive to sample height changes ensuring accurate quantitative analysis at all times.” to “The WDS spectrometer uses the diffracting crystal to focus the characteristic X-rays into the detectors.” I do not think this statement is correct: “it has no optics and is far less sensitive to sample height changes ensuring accurate quantitative analysis at all times.”

Line 235: The elements analyzed by WDS also include Sr and Ba. The LiF crystal was listed for V in Table 2 instead of PET. Please clarify.

Lines 269, 280, 349: It should be Table 3, not Table 4. Please confirm.

Lines 303, 366: Table 6 is not found. Which table does the authors refer to? Table 5?

Lines 269-274: Is the identification of Ba in chevkinite by Baginski et al. (2015) questionable? Please note that BaLα line overlaps with TiKα line in EDS. The detected BaLα is most likely from TiKα.

Line 342: Explain what is “Co standard”. Cobalt standard?

Line 358, Table 4: Explain “bd” in Table 4. Below detection limit?

Line 370, Table 5: The Table title is not consistent with the content in the table. There are only two chevkinite crystals in the table.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have taken on board your recommendations and improved the manuscript accordingly. Thank you for helping us making the manuscript more concise.

Kind regards

Alicja

Author Response File: Author Response.docx