From TPH to Multi-Endpoint Monitoring: Rethinking Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils in Arctic and Sub-Arctic Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have completed a review of the literature relevant to remediation of soil in cold climate.  As noted by the authors on Line 221 it is not comprehensive but meant to provide helpful information.  One of my challenges is that the Introduction refers to the establishment of a framework that can assist with remediation projects.  However, I do not see a framework that is explicitly presented to the reader.  Presenting a clear framework would help the reader.  It would also show the value-added research completed by the authors.  As currently written, the authors have prepared a good review, yet it is challenging to see what is new, i.e., framework.  

The Discussion also shows how the information gathered could be applied in a Russian context.  Perhaps it would be helpful if the framework application to Russia could be expanded in the Introduction.

The manuscript is well written and easy to follow.  One suggestion to help with literacy is editing the text to reduce the use of "this" when starting paragraphs and sentences.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer’s 1 comments

Comment #1: The authors have completed a review of the literature relevant to remediation of soil in cold climate.  As noted by the authors on Line 221 it is not comprehensive but meant to provide helpful information.  One of my challenges is that the Introduction refers to the establishment of a framework that can assist with remediation projects.  However, I do not see a framework that is explicitly presented to the reader.  Presenting a clear framework would help the reader.  It would also show the value-added research completed by the authors.  As currently written, the authors have prepared a good review, yet it is challenging to see what is new, i.e., framework.

Response #1: Thank you for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we substantially strengthened and explicitly presented the conceptual framework of the review. The Introduction now includes a dedicated paragraph clearly describing the proposed monitoring-driven remediation framework and its key components (lines 125–146). We also clarified the novelty and value-added contribution of the review by emphasizing that the manuscript integrates chemical, bioavailability-oriented, ecotoxicological, microbiological, and soil-function monitoring approaches into a unified decision-support framework for Arctic and sub-Arctic petroleum-contaminated soils. In addition, the framework is further developed throughout the manuscript and illustrated in Figure 1 (conceptual framework), Figure 2 (decision-oriented technology selection scheme), and Figure 3 (stepwise monitoring-driven remediation framework for Arctic soils).

Comment #2: The Discussion also shows how the information gathered could be applied in a Russian context.  Perhaps it would be helpful if the framework application to Russia could be expanded in the Introduction.

Response #2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the Introduction to more clearly explain the relevance and application of the proposed framework to the Russian Arctic and Western Siberian context. The revised text now explicitly discusses how international remediation experience can be translated into Russian practice through the integration of recultivation requirements, best available technology (BAT) principles, risk-based assessment, and monitoring-driven decision-making (lines 125–131). In particular, the Introduction now includes an explicit description of the proposed monitoring-driven remediation framework and its adaptation to Russian Arctic conditions (lines 131–134). Additional emphasis on the Russian Arctic context, international-to-national framework translation, and practical implications for Russian remediation practice was also incorporated throughout the Discussion section, especially in Sections 4.3–4.5 (lines 1177–1179, 1218–1221, 1247–1248).

Comment #3: The manuscript is well written and easy to follow.  One suggestion to help with literacy is editing the text to reduce the use of "this" when starting paragraphs and sentences.

Response #3: Thank you for this recommendation. The manuscript was carefully edited throughout to improve readability and reduce repetitive sentence openings and excessive use of “this” at the beginning of paragraphs and sentences. The overall language quality and stylistic consistency of the manuscript were substantially improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review provides a decision-orientated framework that links environmental conditions, contaminant properties, and monitoring data to support the selection and optimization of remediation strategies in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. This is a comprehensive review with clear guidance, but some revisions are required before considering acceptance.

 

1. The relevant references should be cited in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
2. The results under section 3 should be reorganized to reduce the subsections. For example, the remediation strategies should be grouped into physical, chemical, and biological means.
3. The current presentation of Table 5 is meaningless and not useful. Can you group the key information from these references rather than listing them one by one?
4. The content of 4.10 should be put forward in the introduction section to highlight the difference of the review from others.
5. The conclusion section should be revised to be concise.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer’s 2 comments

Comment #1: The relevant references should be cited in Tables 2, 3, and 4.

Response #1: Thank you for this suggestion. Relevant citations and supporting references were added to Tables 2–4 through explanatory notes and representative source references associated with each table.

Comment #2: The results under section 3 should be reorganized to reduce the subsections. For example, the remediation strategies should be grouped into physical, chemical, and biological means.

Response #2: We agree with this comment and substantially reorganized Section 3. The remediation technologies are now grouped into broader conceptual categories: biological remediation strategies; physicochemical remediation strategies, and thermal treatment and source-removal strategies.

This restructuring improved readability and strengthened the comparative analytical synthesis across technology groups.

Comment #3: The current presentation of Table 5 is meaningless and not useful. Can you group the key information from these references rather than listing them one by one?

Response #3: Thank you for this important observation. Table 5 was completely redesigned. Instead of listing references individually, the revised table now presents: grouped evidence categories; representative evidence sources; key findings; major limitations; implications for the proposed remediation framework.

This substantially improved the analytical value and interpretability of the table.

Comment #4: The content of 4.10 should be put forward in the introduction section to highlight the difference of the review from others.

Response #4:  We agree and revised the manuscript accordingly. The Introduction was expanded to more clearly highlight the novelty and distinguishing features of the present review compared with previous Arctic remediation reviews. In particular, we moved forward the discussion emphasizing that this review differs from earlier technology-centered or biodegradation-focused reviews by positioning monitoring as the central link between contamination assessment and remediation decision-making. The revised Introduction now explicitly describes the integration of chemical, bioavailability-oriented, ecotoxicological, microbiological, and soil-function monitoring approaches into a unified decision-support framework for Arctic and sub-Arctic petroleum-contaminated soils (lines 135–146).

Comment #5: The conclusion section should be revised to be concise.

Response #5: The Conclusions section was substantially revised and condensed. Repetitive descriptions were removed, and the section now focuses more directly on: the main conceptual findings; monitoring-driven remediation; adaptive treatment-train approaches; implications for Arctic and Russian remediation practice.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have address the concerns previously raised and the framework for cold climate remediation is beneficial.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made corresponding revisions.