Trace Elements and Mineralogy of Upper Permian (Zechstein) Potash Deposits in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to article

1. Lines 9-10 – All elements – Ag, As, Ba, Be, Br, Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Ga, I, La, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, Ti, Tl, U, V and Zn are treated as the same group. Is their importance the same? Why for example the REE (La, Ce) were not distinguished as a separate group, they are peculiar elements. They are not as popular as other trace elements and there is a high demand for these elements in many branches of the industry. There is no information about them in ”Introduction” chapter and Chapter ”Previous geochemical studies of Zechstein potash-bearing deposits in Poland”.

22.  Also Ag, As, U, Cs, Ga, I and Se are specyfic elements but they are treated as for example Cu, Zn, Mn, Pb and Sn.

33. Lines 292-294 – No information on magnification in microscopic photography (Fig. 11).

44. No citation in the text of the references 93 – Podemski M., 1972.

55. Were the Figures 1 and 2 made by Authors?

66. Lines 444-449 – The statement ”Some of most required trace elements are attributed to defined minerals: boron (B) to boracite, hexahydroborite to chlorites and clay minerals, strontium (Sr) to celestine and  gipsum or anhydrite (replacing Ca), lithium (Li) to spodumene, clay minerals and chlorites, nickel (Ni) to trevorite, iron (Fe) mainly to pyrite, gethite and hematite (Table 4).” is rather connected with references data than the Authors’ research results.

77. Summarizing the results of the research, the Authors concluded that ”Relatively low content (up to 26 mg/kg) of most analysed trace elements in the studied Zechstein potash-bearing deposits in Poland – defined in accessible rock samples – eliminate them as a potential source rocks for economically profitable extraction” but They do not state whether there is any risk of the environment pollution connected with the presence of some trace elements, for example: Pb, As, Cr, Cd or U.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments:

-Recast Conclusion. The informations are repeated.

-Part 4, Material and Methods, is protracted and very descriptive. It would be good to rework and summarize it.

-It would be more efficient if the contents of individual elements in the all three cyclothems were compared using graphs or used to compare the normalised values after evaporites of German Zechstein.

-The genetical part is completely missing. How can contents of individual trace elements be used in the genesis evaporites? The genetic part needs to be completed.

The mineral asemblages, primary and diagenetic are not defined. It needs to be done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is focussed on the mineralogical and geochemical composition of the Zechstein potash deposits of the PZ1, PZ2 and PZ3 of the Polish Permian Basin. A large number of mineralogical and geochemical data were used. The authors identified characteristic mineral compositions for the K-Mg sulphates of the PZ1 and the K-Mg chlorides of the PZ2 and PZ3 as well as for the trace elements. The authors conclude, that the concentration of strategic elements such as Ce, Cs, La, Li or Rb are too low to be of economic interest.
Comments and suggestions for the authors
The authors have done a great work with this huge number of samples and mineralogical and geochemical data sets. This is a very good compendium of such rare data. And it is worthy to mention, that the preparation and the analysis of potash seam samples is a challenge.
From my point of view some improvements should be done.
1. In general, you should decide to use one consistent syntax for sylvite or sylvin (both are correct).
2. Line 32: 5.4 mln Mg – I don’t understand this. 5.4 million tonnes of magnesium? We are talking about lithium here.
3. Line 33: The reference [22] Urbańczyk (2011) is too old and should be changed by a newer one with actual data.
4. Line 34: Li concentration in the Salar de Atacama: 1000 – 7000 mg/kg according to Boschetti et al. (2007) [Boschetti, T. Cortecci, G., Barbieri, M., Mussi, M. (2007): New and past geochemical data on fresh to brine waters of the Salar de Atacama and Andean Altiplano, northern Chile. Geofluids (7), pp. 33-50], Warren (2016)
5. Fig. 1B: The location names are displayed in too small letters – please magnify.
6. Line 180, 181: Please specify the machines (Which product, also from Perkin Elmer?).
7. Fig. 2: Please enlarge the box frame of the figure discription a little bit. The "g" of "Figure 11" is cut off.
8. Fig. 6: Should be magnified
9. Line 376-378: What's about 1 %, 5%, 10% and 20%? I could be probabaly be like this: rare (1 to <5%), frequent (5 to <10%), common (10 to <20%) and dominant (≥20%)
10. Tab. 4: In the second row, numbers from 1 to 5 are displayed - I don’t see any reason for this. They can be deleted. In this table and in the text: getite should be goethite.
11. Fig. 11B: Two green points for one microprobe analysis in the polyhalite, the green marker for the anhydrite, which is also analysed by microprobe, is missing. Fig. 11C: Is too small to read - please magnify.
12. Line 405: hexahydrite
13. Fig. 12D: It is hard to read "he+ep"
14. Line 419: What is NE-V?
15. Line 436: Langbeinite is not a primary formed mineral, but a secondary formed one.. Langbeinite is a typical thermos-metamorphic formed mineral, which reacts at 83°C according to: 2 kainite + 1 kieserite <=> langbeinite + MgCl2 + 6.5 H2O (e.g. in Braitsch 1971). MgCl2 and H2O represent a magnesiumchloride solution.
16. Tab. 5, 6, 7: The statistics should be reorganized: If the min. value is below the detection limit, a calculation of the mean and median values is problematic because some values are below the detection limit (e.g. Rb in Tab.4: < 0.5 mg/kg). What value is used in this case? 0.5, 0.4 or 0.3...? And for which number of samples? That changes the calculated values. Probably the cells can be filled e.g. with n.c. (not calculated). Or, probably you can rearrange the tables. The columns with n., min., max. are okay, but you can add following columns: number (n) of samples below detection limit (bdl.), and for the rest of the samples you can use the statistic parameters if there are enough samples left: mean and median values of samples > detection
limit (this information about the restrictions concerning parts of the statistics, must be noticed in the text). 17. The rearrangement of the statistics will affect the text und must be corrected in these parts.
18. Optional: For a better overview, some diagrams displaying the trace element content of the different sources (sulphates and chlorides) would be helpful.
19. Line 534-538: In this text-area is missing that the authors refer to median and arithmetic mean.
20. Line 536: The Br content varies between 151 and 308 (not 310) see Tab. 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf