Review Reports

The article is very interesting. It raises a very important topic, although already quite well known in the literature. However, due to the health of potential consumers of caught fish, this type of research never loses its value.

Dear colleague, thank you for your kind comment!

Nevertheless, a few shortcomings can be identified:

1. Research methodology

a) a precise list of elements determined in individual research materials should be included

In each sample of crucian organs, the concentration of 72 chemical elements (Li – U) was analyzed. The content of a number of elements (PGE, REE, Be, Ge, Nb, Mo, In, W) was lower or at the limit of detection. Many elements contained in the water of the Komsomolsk pond in background concentrations were also at the background level in the organs of crucian carp. Therefore, we considered the characteristic chemical elements that accumulate in organs. Please, see Line 174-175.

b) provide precise data on the reference materials that were used to validate the method

Thank you for the comment.

Element concentrations were determined by external calibration. Reference materials of muscle tissue of Baikal perch (Perca fluviatilis, L.) CRM BOk-2 (GSO 9055-2008, Institute of Geochemistry SB RAS) CO KOOMET 0068-2009-RU was used for standard curve including at least five points with a correlation coefficient of 0.998. Please see Line 171-174

c) the standards on which the apparatus was calibrated should be indicated

A solution of Li, Mg, Co, Y and Tl in 2% nitric acid with a concentration of 1 μg/L for each determined element (“ICP-MS Tuning Solution”, Agilent Technologies, Mulgrave, Australia) was used for the adjustment. Three sigma method detection limits (MDLs) and 10 sigma Limit of Quantitation (MLOQs) were calculated from 10 measurements of the preparation blank. All measurements were conducted in three replicates for each element. All validations and sample analyses were performed in conjunction with appropriate QA/QC, including blank samples prepared using distilled de-ionized water (>15 MΩ) and high purity nitric acid for ICP-MS spectrometry. ICP-MS control were prepared using a 1.00 ± 0.05 mg/L standard multielement solution for ICP-MS (SKAT, Novosibirsk, Russia). Please see Line  161-170.

2. Description of results and discussion:

a) broaden the discussion by presenting the results of similar studies

Thank you for the comment. We have discussed the result with reference to literature.

3. Conclusions:

a) on the basis of the results obtained, conclusions could be extended to practical recommendations.

Thank you! Conclusions have been extended.

1. The title needs to be revised for clarity

Thank you for the comment. The title has been revised.

2. The abstract is well written

Thank you for kind comment

3. The results need to be discussed with reference to literature. There should be a comparison based on literature.

Thank you for the comment. We have discussed the result with reference to literature. The additional discussion is highlighted in yellow according to the comment of Reviewer 1.

4. The conclusion needs to be revised without numbering

Thank you! We have revised the conclusion.

5. Please, revise the manuscript for a few language errors.

So sorry! We tried to “catch” an errors.

L 58. The lack of a point here, and the same for highlighted place below.

So sorry, thank you!

Fig. 1. Scale are needed in the figure.

In addition, if there is an accumulation of surface slag it should be highlighted in the figure.

Thank you for the comment. Fig. 1 has been corrected

L. 114. The sampling depth needs to be described, and at the same time, the authors should consider the effect of different sampling depths on the elemental content of the water.

Thank you for the comment.

It is really very important - from what depth to take a water sample. The composition of surface and bottom water can be very different. Please, see Line 114-115

what is the standard for ICP-MS analysis?

Standard for analysis has been added. Please, see Line 161-175 (highlighted in yellow according to the comment of Reviewer 1)

L 243. Pay attention to paragraph formatting to meet magazine requirements.

Thank you!

Fig. 5. Different elements have different levels of enrichment in fish (different parts), how to determine whether the enrichment of these elements in fish is affected by the elements in water/Mine Tailings, there should be comparative experimental results.

Dear Bandjun, sure, you are absolutely right! In order to understand how the water from the Komsomolsk pond (increased concentrations of metals and metalloids) affects the composition of various organs, we determined the composition of background carps. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the discussed elements in crucian carps from the background reservoir (Chany Lake). And with them we compare crucian carps from Komsomolsk pond. I.e., liver with liver, gills with gills, etc.

the authors described a "Mine Tailings-Pond Water-Fish", The authors' description and explanation of the Pond Water-Fish section is relatively adequate, but there is relatively little explanation of the effects of the Mine Tailings section on water and fish, e.g. the source of the significantly enriched elements in water and fish is not clearly explained, is it from within the mine or gangue leaching or other causes?

Thank you for the comment.

We added the chemistry of water-sold interaction. Please, see Line 228-245.