Nephrite of Bazhenovskoye Chrysotile–Asbestos Deposit, Middle Urals: Localization, Mineral Composition and Color
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the world, the serpentinite-related nephrite deposit was less understood, this study contributes to the topic with the study of such type of nephrite with detailed mineralogical study. But still lots of work to be done to revise this before final publication.
- In the abstract, according to the title, readers will pay more attention to the formation process of the nephrite rather than the colors, associate minerals. If you want to do so, please add the main process for the formation of nephrite, for example, the origin of the hydrothermal fluids and material, metasomatism process and so on.
- The title should be more specific and focus on the formation process or color or mineral assemblages and something like this.
- In the geological setting, please pay more attention to the formation of the nephrite and its host rock. For example, who has been replaced for “they” in “they are replaced by serpentinites and talc-chlorite 94 rocks, and in the axial parts of the faults – by talc-carbonate rocks.” I still not quite clear the formation process of nephrite according to the geological setting.
- In fig2, what is the green main part of right figure and it is the green nephrite? Please label it in the figure directly.
- Please merge fig.2 and 3. In the figure 3, two dotted lines are a little misleading and please more specific as 1 also has green color and it is nephrite?
- Black spots in nephrite in fig.4 should be labeled.
- Many figure from 4 to 6 could be merged as one.
- Line 313, 338 a Russian word occurred.
- The relationship between chromite and chrome grossular is not clear and both metasomatism and overgrow was described by the authors. Thus, more BSE images should be presented to describe the minerals and possible color causing mechanism.
- For further studying the fluids origin for the formation of the nephrite, O-H isotopes of nephrite could be determined. In this study, too much views of others have been cited. But as far as we know, metamorphic water is also possible.
- The main occurrence of garnet is not clear for the formation of nephrite or the color of nephrite.
Author Response
- In the abstract, according to the title, readers will pay more attention to the formation process of the nephrite rather than the colors, associate minerals. If you want to do so, please add the main process for the formation of nephrite, for example, the origin of the hydrothermal fluids and material, metasomatism process and so on.
The title text has been corrected
- The title should be more specific and focus on the formation process or color or mineral assemblages and something like this.
The title text has been corrected
- In the geological setting, please pay more attention to the formation of the nephrite and its host rock. For example, who has been replaced for “they” in “they are replaced by serpentinites and talc-chlorite 94 rocks, and in the axial parts of the faults – by talc-carbonate rocks.” I still not quite clear the formation process of nephrite according to the geological setting.
Phrase text has been corrected. Localization of nephrite bodies is described in section 3.1. Nephrite formation is discussed in section 4.
- In fig2, what is the green main part of right figure and it is the green nephrite? Please label it in the figure directly.
Yes. The caption text has been corrected.
- Please merge fig.2 and 3. In the figure 3, two dotted lines are a little misleading and please more specific as 1 also has green color and it is nephrite?
Figures 2 and 3 refer to different localities, their combination will confuse the reader. Number 1 in Fig. 3 denotes gabbro, which is written in the caption to the figure, it is gray.
- Black spots in nephrite in fig.4 should be labeled.
The caption text has been corrected.
- Many figure from 4 to 6 could be merged as one.
Figures 4-6 are different. In fig. 4 the polished jade platinum, demonstrating its quality, in fig. 5 and 6 samples of jade and tremolite rocks studied in the course of this study. The possibility of combining Figures 5 and 6 is left to the discretion of the editor of the special issue and the technical editor.
- Line 313, 338 a Russian word occurred.
Text has been corrected
- The relationship between chromite and chrome grossular is not clear and both metasomatism and overgrow was described by the authors. Thus, more BSE images should be presented to describe the minerals and possible color causing mechanism.
Grossular both corrodes and grows overgrown with chromite. Chrome grossular, replacing chromite, causes the appearance of bright bluish-green spots. The text has been corrected.
- For further studying the fluids origin for the formation of the nephrite, O-H isotopes of nephrite could be determined. In this study, too much views of others have been cited. But as far as we know, metamorphic water is also possible.
Unfortunately, the study of the isotopic composition of oxygen and hydrogen was not carried out in the course of this study. We will take into account the need for such research in the future. As for the role of metamorphic fluids, it is reflected in the discussion:
«Along with the recognition of the role of fluids, other researchers pay great attention to the contribution of metamorphism, they believe that after ultramafic nephrite is confined to the zones of serpentinite mélange [37, 38]. Metasomatism with participation of fluids of metamorphic origin is accepted for the genesis of nephrite of Mount Ogden, British Columbia, Canada [39], the Southern Island of New Zealand [40], Fengtien in Taiwan [26], the area of Kutcho, British Columbia, Canada [27]».
- The main occurrence of garnet is not clear for the formation of nephrite or the color of nephrite.
Chrome grossular, replacing chromite, causes the appearance of bright bluish-green spots. The text has been corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is rather well prepared. The ramarks are the following. 1. The absract should be completely rewritten (English in Abstract does not stand up to criticism; the abstarct is not informative now and does not reflect the undertaken work). 2. Raman spectroscopy data should be provided in a separate table where wavenumbers of lines are given together with their assignment (like water, Mg-OH vibrations etc.). 3. Some corrections are suggected in pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The absract should be completely rewritten (English in Abstract does not stand up to criticism; the abstarct is not informative now and does not reflect the undertaken work).
- corrected
- Raman spectroscopy data should be provided in a separate table where wavenumbers of lines are given together with their assignment (like water, Mg-OH vibrations etc.).
- we did Raman in the article only on the content of the OH-group, and did not give the whole spectrum of nephrite
- Some corrections are suggected in pdf.
- corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
The revise paper ”Nephrite of Bazhenovskoye Chrysotile-asbestos Deposit, Middle Urals: Localization, Composition, Property” by Evgeniy V. Kislov et al. is an interesting contribution to our understanding of the Russsian nephrite deposits. The paper is properly structured and relatively well-written. In my opinion it deserves publication and only a minor revision is necessary to meets the quality of an international journal. The revised paper firstly describes, to the wider audience, a new occurrence of serpentinite-type nephrite in the Bazhenovskoye asbestos deposit in Urals. Moreover, Authors documented – very rare as for nephrite – mineral inclusions type, such as nickeline, maucherite and uvarovite. However, In this paper, there is some problem with the scientific terminology used, as well as with the usage of improper or colloquial words in several places. I listed some of these mistakes in the detailed comments below, but the whole text should be checked for these. Also, the papers is not free also from merit errors, which are also mentioned below.
General comments:
1) Used color nomenclature is unclear. It and can be simplified and in accordance with most papers about the nephrites.
2) The term ”intermediate tremolite rock” is confusing because intermediate usually refers to the silica content. I recommend to replace it by ”transitional tremolite rock”.
3) In results, antigorite is mentioned as minor constituent. On which basis this minerals is termed antigorite? XRD diffraction or Raman spectroscopy? If it is only based on petrographic examination, then should be termed just serpentine. Besides, are you sure that it is not chlorite, the mineral which is common in nephrites?
4) Table 6. Where is serpentinite in this table (its presence can be deducted from the footnote)? The SiO2 content of 57-58 wt.% is siginificantly too high as for serpentinite (it should have below 45 wt.% SiO2). Moreover, samples labels in the table did not correspond with samples labels in the footnote.
5) Presence of uvarovite garnet is quite unique for the nephrite and thus reference to data about Cr-rich garnets from other deposits, given by Authors, is desirable. However, one of the best documented uvarovite-component-rich garnets in nephrite, i.e., this in serpentinite-derived nephrite from the Nasławice deposit in Poland (Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335) is missing.
6) Serpentinite transformation into nephrite requires addition of silica. In discussion, metasomatic fluids are taken into account as possible source of silica for the serpentinite-derived nephrite formation. It is important statement. However, in the discussion plagiogranite dykes are neglected as as fluid source, and other type of granite bodies have never been mentioned, whereas in a lot of papers granitic rocks are proposed as the most likely source of Si-rich fluids due to spatial relations, high Si content in granites, as well as isotopic studies. See for example – papers which are already cited in the revised manuscript – Harlow and Sorensen (2005, International Geology Review, 47, 113-146) and Gil et al. (2015, Geological Quarterly, 59, 457-472). Impact of granite-derived fluids for serpentinite-type nephrite formation is also supported by Sr isotope studies (Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335). There are also much more studies mentioning granites as Si-rich fluids source for the nephrite formation (e.g., Harlow et al. 2007, and Harlow et al. 2014, both in Mineralogical Association of Canada Shour Course series). This point of view should also be mentioned as one of the widely accepted.
7) References list is not uniform.
Detailed comments:
Abstract:
Lines 13-15: Poorly written, grammar should be improved.
1. Introduction
L 28-30: This fragment is proper and desirable, but names of nephrite types, formed at the expense of serpentinite and dolomitic marble, are written somewhat confusing. Moreover, the implemented nomenclature is different from the widely used, so citation should be provided (of note, later in the text, used simplified terminology is very good, i.e., short and informative).
L 48: ”valuable mineral” – this term is confusing because nephrite is a rock.
2. Bazhenovskoye Deposit
L 73: ”middle-high Ordovician” – better ”middle-upper Ordovician”.
L 74: ”sharply” – this word is redundant here.
L 92: ”new” – fresh?.
3. Methods
L 109: Give the units.
L 128: ”wave” – wavelength?
3. Results
L 179: Word ”rich” makes the sentence weird (similar in line 317).
L 213: The word ”outcrops” does not fit here.
L 216-217: Comas are present instead of dots in some numbers.
L 219: ”cataсlyzed”.
L 220: ”instability” – heterogeneity?
L 226: ”%” → wt.%.
L 238: ”sprayed” – sparse?
L 247: ”intensively shistic” – schistose?
L 259: ”ultramafic nephrite” – confusing term as nephrite is not a typical ultramafic rock. Better to say ”ultramafic-derived nephrite” or ”serpentinite-derived nephrite”.
L 265: ”tetrahedites” – tetrahedrons?
L 300-302: Comas are used instead of dots, and Russian letter is present.
4. Discussion
L 323-326: This sentence does not make a sense. Please rephrase.
L 333-340: Garnet of the uvarovite-grossular solid-solution composition is also present in the serpentinite-derived nephrite from the Nasławice deposit in Poland (see Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335). Also ”wt.” in the front of ”%” is missing in line 337.
L 354-355: ”less often than other ultrabasic rocks” – what does it means? Also, more references can be provided here, especially more recent ones.
L 355: ”it is” – should be plural.
L 372: ”prenite” – prehnite.
Best regards,
The reviewer
Author Response
1) Used color nomenclature is unclear. It and can be simplified and in accordance with most papers about the nephrites.
- corrected
2) The term ”intermediate tremolite rock” is confusing because intermediate usually refers to the silica content. I recommend to replace it by ”transitional tremolite rock”.
- corrected
3) In results, antigorite is mentioned as minor constituent. On which basis this minerals is termed antigorite? XRD diffraction or Raman spectroscopy? If it is only based on petrographic examination, then should be termed just serpentine. Besides, are you sure that it is not chlorite, the mineral which is common in nephrites?
- corrected
4) Table 6. Where is serpentinite in this table (its presence can be deducted from the footnote)? The SiO2 content of 57-58 wt.% is siginificantly too high as for serpentinite (it should have below 45 wt.% SiO2). Moreover, samples labels in the table did not correspond with samples labels in the footnote.
- corrected
5) Presence of uvarovite garnet is quite unique for the nephrite and thus reference to data about Cr-rich garnets from other deposits, given by Authors, is desirable. However, one of the best documented uvarovite-component-rich garnets in nephrite, i.e., this in serpentinite-derived nephrite from the Nasławice deposit in Poland (Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335) is missing.
- corrected
6) Serpentinite transformation into nephrite requires addition of silica. In discussion, metasomatic fluids are taken into account as possible source of silica for the serpentinite-derived nephrite formation. It is important statement. However, in the discussion plagiogranite dykes are neglected as as fluid source, and other type of granite bodies have never been mentioned, whereas in a lot of papers granitic rocks are proposed as the most likely source of Si-rich fluids due to spatial relations, high Si content in granites, as well as isotopic studies. See for example – papers which are already cited in the revised manuscript – Harlow and Sorensen (2005, International Geology Review, 47, 113-146) and Gil et al. (2015, Geological Quarterly, 59, 457-472). Impact of granite-derived fluids for serpentinite-type nephrite formation is also supported by Sr isotope studies (Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335). There are also much more studies mentioning granites as Si-rich fluids source for the nephrite formation (e.g., Harlow et al. 2007, and Harlow et al. 2014, both in Mineralogical Association of Canada Shour Course series). This point of view should also be mentioned as one of the widely accepted.
- corrected
7) References list is not uniform.
- corrected
Detailed comments:
Abstract:
Lines 13-15: Poorly written, grammar should be improved.
- corrected
- Introduction
L 28-30: This fragment is proper and desirable, but names of nephrite types, formed at the expense of serpentinite and dolomitic marble, are written somewhat confusing. Moreover, the implemented nomenclature is different from the widely used, so citation should be provided (of note, later in the text, used simplified terminology is very good, i.e., short and informative).
- corrected
L 48: ”valuable mineral” – this term is confusing because nephrite is a rock.
- corrected
- Bazhenovskoye Deposit
L 73: ”middle-high Ordovician” – better ”middle-upper Ordovician”.
- corrected
L 74: ”sharply” – this word is redundant here.
- corrected
L 92: ”new” – fresh?.
- corrected
- Methods
L 109: Give the units.
- corrected
L 128: ”wave” – wavelength?
- corrected
- Results
L 179: Word ”rich” makes the sentence weird (similar in line 317).
- corrected
L 213: The word ”outcrops” does not fit here.
- corrected
L 216-217: Comas are present instead of dots in some numbers.
- corrected
L 219: ”cataсlyzed”.
- corrected
L 220: ”instability” – heterogeneity?
- corrected
L 226: ”%” → wt.%.
- corrected
L 238: ”sprayed” – sparse?
- corrected
L 247: ”intensively shistic” – schistose?
- corrected
L 259: ”ultramafic nephrite” – confusing term as nephrite is not a typical ultramafic rock. Better to say ”ultramafic-derived nephrite” or ”serpentinite-derived nephrite”.
- corrected
L 265: ”tetrahedites” – tetrahedrons?
- corrected
L 300-302: Comas are used instead of dots, and Russian letter is present.
- corrected
- Discussion
L 323-326: This sentence does not make a sense. Please rephrase.
- corrected
L 333-340: Garnet of the uvarovite-grossular solid-solution composition is also present in the serpentinite-derived nephrite from the Nasławice deposit in Poland (see Gil et al. 2020, Ore Geology Reviews, 118, 103335). Also ”wt.” in the front of ”%” is missing in line 337.
- corrected
L 354-355: ”less often than other ultrabasic rocks” – what does it means? Also, more references can be provided here, especially more recent ones.
- corrected
L 355: ”it is” – should be plural.
- corrected
L 372: ”prenite” – prehnite.
- corrected
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear,
I have a glance at the revision. But I found still new revision is required as only 30% materials has been checked and fixed compared with the suggestions and comments presented in the last review. Please revise the manuscript carefully according to the suggestions raised by the reviewers. Some important parts such as absrtact and consluion need further revision.
Author Response
Author's Notes
In the abstract, according to the title, readers will pay more attention to the formation process of the nephrite rather than the colors, associate minerals. If you want to do so, please add the main process for the formation of nephrite, for example, the origin of the hydrothermal fluids and material, metasomatism process and so on.
The title and abstract texts have been corrected
The title should be more specific and focus on the formation process or color or mineral assemblages and something like this.
The title text has been corrected
- In the geological setting, please pay more attention to the formation of the nephrite and its host rock. For example, who has been replaced for “they” in “they are replaced by serpentinites and talc-chlorite 94 rocks, and in the axial parts of the faults – by talc-carbonate rocks.” I still not quite clear the formation process of nephrite according to the geological setting.
Phrase text has been corrected. The section focuses on the origin of serpentinites and their intersecting dikes as rocks that host and generate nephrite. Localization of nephrite bodies is described in section 3.1. Nephrite formation is discussed in section 4.
In fig2, what is the green main part of right figure and it is the green nephrite? Please label it in the figure directly.
Yes. The caption text has been corrected.
Please merge fig.2 and 3. In the figure 3, two dotted lines are a little misleading and please more specific as 1 also has green color and it is nephrite?
Figures 2 and 3 have been merged. Number 1 in Fig. 3 denotes gabbro, which is written in the caption to the figure, it is gray.
Black spots in nephrite in fig.4 should be labeled.
The caption text has been corrected.
Many figure from 4 to 6 could be merged as one.
Figures 4-6 are different. In fig. 4 the polished nephrite plate, demonstrating its quality. The fig. 5 and 6 have been merged.
Line 313, 338 a Russian word occurred.
Text has been corrected
- The relationship between chromite and chrome grossular is not clear and both metasomatism and overgrow was described by the authors. Thus, more BSE images should be presented to describe the minerals and possible color causing mechanism.
Grossular both corrodes and grows overgrown with chromite. Chrome grossular, replacing chromite, causes the appearance of bright bluish-green spots. The text has been corrected. Additional two BSE images were presented.
- For further studying the fluids origin for the formation of the nephrite, O-H isotopes of nephrite could be determined. In this study, too much views of others have been cited. But as far as we know, metamorphic water is also possible.
Unfortunately, the study of the isotopic composition of oxygen and hydrogen was not carried out in the course of this study. We will take into account the need for such research in the future. As for the role of metamorphic fluids, it is reflected in the discussion:
«Along with the recognition of the role of fluids, other researchers pay great attention to the contribution of metamorphism, they believe that after ultramafic nephrite is confined to the zones of serpentinite mélange [37, 38]. Metasomatism with participation of fluids of metamorphic origin is accepted for the genesis of nephrite of Mount Ogden, British Columbia, Canada [39], the Southern Island of New Zealand [40], Fengtien in Taiwan [26], the area of Kutcho, British Columbia, Canada [27]».
The main occurrence of garnet is not clear for the formation of nephrite or the color of nephrite.
Chrome grossular, replacing chromite, causes the appearance of bright bluish-green spots. The text has been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
