Electromagnetic Monitoring of Modern Geodynamic Processes: An Approach for Micro-Inhomogeneous Rock through Effective Parameters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors: please read carefully the attached document, and consider every correction, suggestion and correct every clear finding that I comment. Good Luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your precise work with our manuscript. For most of comments we agree and gladly accept your suggestions. Please, refer to the revised version. Thank you for your valuable encouragements for the publication of this manuscript!
Point 1. Lines 2,3 and 4: To my knowledge, the title of the articles have a redaction problem which can be avoided rewriting as I suggest at the final string of this correction. And, it is not necessary to write the title in an “all capitalized” style, it is a common error to think that the “all capitalizing” style, even for a relevant text, conferes it with some extra importance. And, as a text with punctuation signs (a “:”, for example...) it might end with a period. So my first suggestion is to write the title like follows: “Electromagnetic monitoring of modern geodynamic processes: an approach for micro- inhomogeneous rocks through effective parameters.”
Response 1. We rewrote the title upon your suggestion and Applied Sciences guidelines.
Point 2. Line 12: clearly, the symbol for the electric conductivity is wrong... It might be a sigma.
Response 2. Yes, it is sigma. Unfortunately, it is file wrong formatting. Sorry.
Point 3. Line 14: to me, it might be included an “a“ here: ...by a layered...”
Response 3. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 4. Lines 16-17: To me, the text must be improved by writing, for instance: “...simplifies the retrieving of the effective parameters.”
Response 4. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 5. Line 24: … I find that the word “define” configures a very strong,”.
Response 5. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 6. Line 31: I feel that rewriting “...at analyzing of the physical parameters...” in the form: “...at the analysis of physical parameters...” would improve the text.
Response 6. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 7. Line 66: In this text there are some corrections to make: It lacks to me a comma and an “a”, and the verb “to exist” is ruled by the singular of “number” instead of the plural of methods... So, the text should look like: “...material properties there, a number of methods exists...
Response 7. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 8. Line 73: for me it lacks a verb in the subordinate string after “where”... All can be solved replacing “as” with an “is”, like follows: ..., where the omega shape (Q) inclusion is a structural...”
Response 8. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 9. Line 106 (an others in the entire manuscript): In order to preserve an internal, formal coherence in the edition of the article, the references' calls should be written with blank spaces separating commas and numbers as follows [12, 13, 14, ...] instead of [12,13,14...]. Please revise this trivial detail in all pertinent case.
Response 9. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 10. Lines 125-126: “...to the transform...” is wrong to me... As “transform” is a verb, the “the” is “a discordant note” here, so I suggest to use a noun, like follows: “to the transformation...”
Response 10. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 11. Line 136: to me it lacks an “is” here... “It is installed...”
Response 11. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 12. In the figure 1, about line 166, the “°,E” might be reallocated at the end of the abscise axis after the “80” mark. The same happens in the plot above-right with the “°,N” which might be reallocated after the 42,7 mark.
Response 12. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 13. Line 223, and other parts of the manuscript... For me “Cartesian” do not need to be capitalised, we do not capitalise “polar” in the same context after all... But this correction is optional.
Response 13. Thank you. You are right. We prefer to write in capital letters upon https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/cartesian-coordinate.
Point 14. Line 229: even it is used in the somehow “robotic” style of scientific articles, writing “...century by [29,...” is a bit of a “sharp cutting” ending of a paragraph... Then, in this well written article it could be improved from details like this, ending this line (and others possibly...) like follows: “in XX century, as shown in references [29, 42, 43].
Response 14. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 15. Line 250: the comma after “...resistivity)” is not necessary here.
Response 15. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 16. Line 253: remove the “s” in “a modifications” -> “a modification”...
Response 16. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 17. Figure 4: lacks the dimensional reference
Response 17. We are sorry, but in the original paper, there is no information about dimensions. We added the following text: Field of width from Camebax electron microprobe of each micrograph is 8 mm.
Point 18. Line 291: the comma between “under” and “leaching” should be removed.
Response 18. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 19. Line 302: replacing the period with a “:” would improve this text: "... associated with rock failure: the ground water, ...”
Response 19. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 20. Line 358: as pointed out in (XIV), replace “as [65]” for “as in reference [65]”, to avoid the above mentioned “robotic style”.
Response 20. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 21. In Line 360, to mantain the manuscript's writing coherence, the initials of the author should be reallocated.
Response 21. Thank you. We accept your suggestion. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 22. Lines 362-363: “devoted to a calculating...” sounds no good english to me... I propose instead to write: “...is devoted to calculate...”.
Response 22. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 23. Line 365: “in as a cube...” to write “in + as” is a strange form of english to me... I suggest to reexpress this as, for instance: “in the form of a cube”. And I suggest to replace the period after “conclusion” with a “:”, leading to a more conclusive: “came to the same conclusion: the paper...”
Response 23. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 24. In line 368 the “robotic style” strikes again... Please complete “the authors in reference [69]...”.
Response 24. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 25. In the very beginning of the line 373, the use of “etc.” for humans for me is somehow abusive... So, it is better to use the more correct “et al.” here...
Response 25. We are sorry to hear that. But it seems, you are confused. Line 373 lists not names, but models. Some models have surname names, but some of them not. So we could use here etc.
Point 26. Lines 398-399: it looks better to declare the parameters with words in the principal text and with signs into the parentheses, and insert “permittivity”, which are lacking, in the highlighted position, like follows: is characterized through the relative dielectric permittivity, the magnetic permeability and the electric conductivity (e, p, ст) media parameters.
Response 26. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 27. Line 502: regarding the extraordinary good care that you put in using punctuation signs, please, end this line with the lacking period.
Response 27. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 28. Line 513: this line looks “invaded” by the formula immediately above placed... So, it would be better to insert a new (blank) line for separation. The new line 514 would look like follows:
“ (not w in capital after a ;... ->) where ae = na , 0e = nPa* and n is a quantity...”
Response 28. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 29. Line 561, it would be nice to end this line with a “:”. The same for line 563.
Response 29. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 30. Line 569: please remove the comma between “point” and “which”.
Response 30. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 31. Line 573, “robotic”... in reference [90].
Response 31. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 32. Line 578... Remember to place the initials first and not after the last name V.R. Bursian [66]... as suggested as follows: “V.R. Bursian [66]: his contribution is still a base to the development of the fundamental...”, for avoiding the repetitive use of the word “fundamental” here.
Response 32. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 33. At the “Results” level of this revision, I need to point out that this section might be called “Results and discussion” (line 580).
Response 33. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 34. Reading the “Results” part it seems evident to my perception that there is a lot of “results and discussions” and even “conclusions” (line 813, for example) in the two appendixes. As I (hardly) learnt decades ago, an appendix is for “supplementary material, more profound explanations of parts which does not pertain to the principal contents of the manuscript, and so on and so forth... So I have to encourage authors “to rescue” the pertinent material in appendixes and to include it in this section, rewriting and improving with more information in the form of explicit tables of numerical results, which are lacking to my opinion. With quantitative, relevant results, which I have no doubt the authors can surely display, and a subsequent, proper discussion of them, the “Results and discussion” section would be rich enough to support the “Conclusions” part.
Response 34. Thank you for your recommendation. We decided to move Appendix B to the results, where are some quantitative evaluations. Also we added some discussion. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 35. At line 633, related with the “Conclusions” part, it might be included a line 634 expressing: Regarding the above considerations, results and discussion, we conclude that: 1 ”
Response 35. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 36. At line 635, regarding the (conclusion) 1.: When I read the text (and I read it three times...) I figured that it appears to be a title instead a conclusion itself... Since, for example, it lacks a verb in the text... So, no verbs, no actions, not enough conclusive meaning... Therefore, I do encourage authors to rewrite lines 635-636 into a more comprehensive, convincing and useful conclusion. Please, compare the “not so substantial” text on lines 635-636 with the well written, relevant and interesting conclusion 2.
Response 36. Thank you. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 37. V.R. Bursian [66]...
Response 37. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 38. in line 808, the reference should be written I.E. Tamm [41].
Response 38. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 39. And again in line 799 the reference should be V.R. Bursian [66].
Response 39. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 40. And in line 820 it should be written: P.N. Alexandrov [88].
Response 40. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 41. In line 825, the reference of Sevastianov et al. does not exist.
Response 41. Thank you. We deleted it.
Point 42. In line 824, the reference of this thesis should be: P.N. Alexandrov [4].
Response 42. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 43. Between lines 840-841 in figure B1 it lacks the parameter (unit) for the ordinate axis.
Response 43. As the parameter (unit) is a coefficient, which formulae are derived as ratio or apparent resistivities, so for the ordinate axis the is no units only arbitrary units.
Point 44. In lines 863-864 the Tang et al. reference should be generated and the number should be invoked in these lines... Is it the reference of https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j-ijmecsci.2021.106843???
Response 44. Thank you. “see [98]”. [98] Tang, H.; Wei, W.; Song, X.; Liu, F. An Anisotropic Elastoplastic Cosserat Continuum Model for Shear Failure in Stratified Geomaterials. Eng. Geol. 2021, 293, 106304, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106304.
Point 44. Line 937. A.D. Karinskiy et al.
Response 44. Thank you. We deleted it.
Point 45. doi “links” are inactive ...
Response 45. This is a MDPI style guidelines from the template. Please, refer to the journal’s requirements, where you could check it. [36] is corrected as doi: All references checked with Mendeley desktop app upon right MDPI style.
Point 46. initials of authors must NOT to be separated with a blank space...
Response 46. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 47. Line 1018…
Response 47. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 48. Line 1024. I was curious about why the last name of these (Polish, with that terrible use of diacritic accents or things like that...) authors are written distinctly here... Then I went to the specific reference and I found the error. You have to choose if you write both as “Stanika” or as “Stănică”, but you can not choose to write them in a different way like is written in the actual reference. Correct it please.
Response 48. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 49. In line 1055 please correct the wrong initial j. so: “M.j.S”. -> “M.J.S.”.
Response 49. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 50. In lines 1080, please separate with a blank space “...Republic:Blast...” -> “...Republic: Blast...”.
Response 50. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 51. In line 1083, “ed.,.;...” too many signs... for me is: “...Eng. ed.; MIR...”.
Response 51. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 52. In line 1131 please eliminate the (non opened) closing parenthesis right after 1972, which does not apply: “..., 1972 (in Russian).”
Response 52. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 53. In line 1182, I wonder: Is “Anamolous” an anomalous variant for the english word “Anomalous”? (auto)reply: Surely not... BUT there´s a kinda hilarating surprise here, since the author V.A. Murkhamadeeva published her paper with such an error in the very FIRST word of the manuscript!!!
Response 53. Yes, unfortunately, author V.A. Mukhamadeeva published her paper with such an error.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, geophysical monitoring methods for cross properties calculation are improved considering the approximation of the real geological media by layered bianisotropic media. The paper is interesting and presents an advance in the field. I only have minor comments before acceptance.
1. The objectives of the paper should be clearly identified in the abstract.
2. Kindly include a last paragraph in the introduction explaining the objectives and novely of your research work.
3. Section 2 should be "Materials and Methods" section.
4. The first two paragraphs of the section 2.1 should be moved to the introduction section.
5. The results and conclusion sections should be revised. The conclusions section should not be bigger than results section.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Reviewer 2 for helpful and constructive review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised according to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which are greatly appreciated. Below we present our point-by-point responses.
Point 1. The objectives of the paper should be clearly identified in the abstract.
Response 1. We rewrote the abstract and added “We demonstrate that transitioning to another coordinate system is equivalent to considering a gradient anisotropic media. Building upon the developed method, we derive the effective electric conductivity tensor for gradient anisotropic media by modeling the process of fracturing in a rock mass”.
Point 2. Kindly include a last paragraph in the introduction explaining the objectives and novely of your research work.
Response 2. We added the objectives and novelty of your research work into introduction and conclusion sections.
Point 3. Section 2 should be "Materials and Methods" section.
Response 3. Section 2 renamed to "Materials and Methods". We revised the results and conclusion sections
Point 4. The first two paragraphs of the section 2.1 should be moved to the introduction section.
Response 4. Unfortunately, we could not agree with this thesis. As 2.1 and 2.2 these are the materials – different kind of data. In our conception, the Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 5. The results and conclusion sections should be revised. The conclusions section should not be bigger than results section.
Response 5. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although this paper is interesting, concerning monitoring on electromagnetic monitoring， while this paper is rough and hard to follow the useful results. The paper must be major and carefully revised before publication. The following is some advice:
1. In the introduction section, the scientific reports are not addressed. It is casual to state the research review. I cannot find useful content. Please revise this part carefully.
2. The equation are lack illustration on the Variables explanation.
3. The results are really too long.
4. The English level and academic expression are really poor.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Reviewer 3 for helpful and constructive review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised according to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which are greatly appreciated. Below we present our point-by-point responses.
Point 1. In the introduction section, the scientific reports are not addressed. It is casual to state the research review. I cannot find useful content. Please revise this part carefully.
Response 1. We rewrote the abstract, the introduction and results sections. The Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 2. The equation are lack illustration on the Variables explanation.
Response 2. Sorry, most of the explanations are giver or in the text, either in figures. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 3. The results are really too long.
Response 3. Other reviewers asked to enlarge the results section and reduce the conclusions. Besides this, we follow MDPI guidelines, where results could be long, but conclusions are short. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 4. The English level and academic expression are really poor.
Response 4. We asked one of the English-speaking colleagues to help us and English level was improved. In addition, we proofread the text by MDPI services.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an excellent paper, and I believe it can be considered for publication after the following minor modifications.
1. The abstract lacks a sentence that describes the significance of this study.
2. The following two important references are missing.
Qi, T., Zhang, F., Pei, X. et al. Simulation research and application on response characteristics of detecting water-filled goaf by transient electromagnetic method. Int J Coal Sci Technol 9, 17 (2022)
Guo, X., Fan, N., Liu, Y. et al. Deep seabed mining: Frontiers in engineering geology and environment. Int J Coal Sci Technol 10, 23 (2023)
3. There are minor formatting and grammar errors in the article, please carefully check.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Reviewer 4 for helpful and constructive review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised according to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which are greatly appreciated. Below we present our point-by-point responses.
Point 1. The abstract lacks a sentence that describes the significance of this study.
Response 1. We rewrote the abstract, the introduction and results sections. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 2. The following two important references are missing.
Qi, T., Zhang, F., Pei, X. et al. Simulation research and application on response characteristics of detecting water-filled goaf by transient electromagnetic method. Int J Coal Sci Technol 9, 17 (2022)
Guo, X., Fan, N., Liu, Y. et al. Deep seabed mining: Frontiers in engineering geology and environment. Int J Coal Sci Technol 10, 23 (2023)
Response 2. Thank you. We added 4 publications. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 3. There are minor formatting and grammar errors in the article, please carefully check.
Response 3. We asked one of the English-speaking colleagues to help us. In addition, we proofread the text by MDPI services.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments on ‘ELECTROMAGNETIC MONITORING OF MODERN GEODYNAMIC PROCESSES: THROUGH EFFECTIVE PARAMETERS APPROACH FOR MICRO-INHOMOGENEOUS ROCK’ by Kseniia Nepeina and coworkers submitted to Applied Sciences.
This study is based on anisotropy in the rock structure and texture at the micro-scale level, it concerns the improvement of geophysical monitoring methods for cross properties calculation by effective parameters estimation, and stresses that continuous electro-magnetic monitoring could help to define natural disasters based on variations of integral macroscopic parameters. The manuscript is generally well written and organized, and can be considered with a publication in the journal if a revision is provided.
I only have a few concerns which are list below:
- In the introduction the authors will need to give a brief overview on what they have done in this study, the current version only presents the research background and motivation of this contribution.
- The conclusion is tediously long, and should be condensed a bit.
- Some editing mistakes and defects slightly affect the quality of English writing, a careful proofreading is necessary before re-submission.
- Lines 228-229: ‘started in XX century by [29, 42, 43]’, what does XX mean? Here references should be given with the author names instead of numbers.
- Line 259: why ‘effective electromagnetic parameters’ are in bold?
- Lines 260-261: not correct English.
- Lines 276-277, 310-311: these sub-titles seem too long.
- Lines 362-363: this is not a clear sentence.
- Lines 383-384: awkward sentence.
- Lines 578-579: looks quite confusing.
- Line 592: Figures 2 and 3.
- Figure 4: The scale is missing.
Sincerely
The reviewer
02 June, 2023
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Reviewer 5 for helpful and constructive review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised according to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which are greatly appreciated. Below we present our point-by-point responses.
Point 1. In the introduction the authors will need to give a brief overview on what they have done in this study, the current version only presents the research background and motivation of this contribution.
Response 1. We rewrote the abstract, the introduction, results and conclusions sections. The Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 2. The conclusion is tediously long, and should be condensed a bit.
Response 2. We agree with Reviewer, corrected.
Point 3. Some editing mistakes and defects slightly affect the quality of English writing, a careful proofreading is necessary before re-submission.
Response 3. We asked one of the English-speaking colleagues to help us. In addition, we proofread the text by MDPI services.
Point 4. Lines 228-229: ‘started in XX century by [29, 42, 43]’, what does XX mean? Here references should be given with the author names instead of numbers.
Response 4. It means 20th century (edited). … by Matlas and Habbejam [29], Berdichevsky et al. [42] and Lilley [43].
Point 5. Line 259: why ‘effective electromagnetic parameters’ are in bold?
Response 5. It is the most important term, which authors are willing to emphasize.
Point 6. Lines 260-261: not correct English.
Response 6. Corrected.
Point 7. Lines 276-277, 310-311: these sub-titles seem too long.
Response 7. Thank you. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 8. Lines 362-363: this is not a clear sentence.
Response 8. Corrected.
Point 9. Lines 383-384: awkward sentence.
Response 9. Corrected.
Point 10. Lines 578-579: looks quite confusing.
Response 10. Corrected.
Point 11. Line 592: Figures 2 and 3.
Response 12. Corrected.
Point 12. Figure 4: The scale is missing.
Response 12. Thank you. We added. Field of width from Camebax electron microprobe of each micrograph is 8 mm
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 6 Report
Hi Authors
Thanks for submission in MDPI.
Title
ELECTROMAGNETIC MONITORING OF MODERN GEODYNAMIC PROCESSES: THROUGH EFFECTIVE PARAMETERS APPROACH FOR MICRO-INHOMOGENEOUS ROCK ----- Pls remove : . Micro inhomogeneous rock pls revisit the word
MICRO-INHOMOGENEOUS ROCK ---Pls revisit the word
Abstract
Likewise, we consider the relationship--- In place of we pls refer the research.
Line 18 which is confirmed by a decrease and an increase in electrical resistivity values over time in orthogonal azimuths, observed in experimental data----Pls quantify the increase and decrease percentage?
Line 19-20 which we obtain during monitoring studies 19 in the Tien Shan ---Pls try to avoid using We instead pls use indirect phrase.
Line 23 Pls avoid using our data you can say the research data or study data or data obtained
Our data confirm the idea, that continuous electro magnetic monitoring could help to define natural disasters (earthquake) based on variations of in- tegral macroscopic parameters------ How you come up on this conclusion kindly revisit. only earthquake? integral macroscopic parameters like ???
Kindly make the abstract slightly more quantitative. The last line pls add the industrial benefit of your research.
Keywords
Pls use few keywords from special issue
Applied Sciences | Special Issue : Natural Hazards and Geomorphology (mdpi.com)
Introduction
Line 30 The study of modern geodynamic processes using non-destructive methods----like???
Line 36 At the same time, the observed physical properties of 36 rocks are macroscopic, according to the theory of a microscopic heterogeneous media --Pls revisit the sentence.
Line 38 Changes in macro anisotropic parameters are associated with irreversible deformations 38 of the rock, occurring inside the Earth's crust --- Reference
Line 46 calculations. ????
Line 51 and preventing global natural disasters.---- Not clear how?
Line 59 The purpose of this study is an attempt to identify some regularity (or provide a theoretical basis) in the nature of the distribution of macro anisotropic properties of rocks and their relationship with modern geodynamic processes in the Earth's crust---In title you are using the word micro Pls revisit the sentence
Line 66 e.g. for elastic deformation are described in [2] and with homogenization [3].--------- Pls remove are described in and with
Line 68 improvement of methods --- which methods???
Line 71 we mean a media -- --- Pls correct we here and onward in all the text and follow the MDPI format.
Line 79 Maxwell equations----- Can you write please ?
Line 83 methods of electromagnetic monitoring ---- Can you name few?
Line 92 These factors are lunar-solar tides, fluid dynamics, tectonic processes and 92 technogenic impacts on the lithosphere, leading to changes in the stress-strain state of the 93 geological media.-----Reference
Line 99 This study is aimed at studying 99 the changes in the macroscopic physicoelectric properties of rocks associated with 100 changes in their internal microstructure----Pls avoid to rewrite the same sentence again and again?
Line 106 etc ----- what do you mean by this in references? Pls follow the MDPI guidelines for references.
Pls arrange introduction in subheads of introduction about keywords, literature review, research gap, motivation and objectives. Unfortunately, in present form all are missing.
Materials and methods
Line 155 in Fundamental practice --- what is this?
Line 117 As shown above, the most sensitive parameter in electromagnetic monitoring is an 117 anisotropy, which is sensitive to changes in the stress-strain state (SSS) of the rock at a 118 quantitative level. It is these changes, that are expressed in the structural-and-textural re- 119 arrangement (adjustment) of the rock------Pls avoid rewriting ?
Line 120 For such a phenomenological model------ such means ?
Line 121 experimental data of the Central Tien Shan-----Pls elaborate orientation
Line 125 a. The task is reduced to the transform from a micro heterogeneous rock model to a homogeneous-anisotropic one.---- why?
Line 130 is respected.-----Not clear
Line 131 As an example of studying the anisotropy parameter on field data, let us refer to the 131 results of passive electromagnetic monitoring of a geodynamically active region.------Review should be covered in Introduction part.
Line 145 Phoenix MTU-5------ Pls explain
Line 146 = E Z -- Pla provide equation number
Line 147 apparent resistivity ---- does not present in equation/relation?
Line 148 e impedance tensor xx xy yx yy Z Z Z Z = = E Z H 147 or phases of the impedance ----Not present in equation
Line 153 the media ----- like ???
Line 158 pls enter equation numbers
Pls label Figure 1 completely--- what red and black lines indicating, axis titles at y and x coordinates etc.
Line 190 Figure 2 anisotropic properties (TFS)-----like ???
Why kambarata point? any specific reason?
If figures 2 and 3 are results? why not to place in results section pls examine?
Line 185 Kambarata explosion (22 Dec. 2009, 11:54 UTC, Kyrgyzstan ------ if you used data of year 2009?
Please label Figure 3?
Figure 3 why after 6 hrs of earth quake?
Line 206 Based on numerous field experiments (Figure 1), we conclude---You can not conclude here --- Pls revisit
Line 217 onwards The study of macroscale anisotropy is a universal tool for assessing the stress-strain 217 state (SSS) (i.e., structural, textural and physical properties of rocks) in the inter-scale view 218 for a number of reasons. When considering rocks at the microscale level, the Lorentz equa- 219 tions [41] are used to describe the models of the telluric currents, which are converted to 220 Maxwell's equations at the macroscale. The convenience of studying macroscale parame- 221 ters is clearly manifested in the approximation by layered bianisotropic media. Then, 222 when we cross from the standard Cartesian coordinate system to any other system, the 223 transition remains equivalent to considering a gradient anisotropic media. In this case, the 224 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 32 relationship between cross properties under EMA with effective parameters and geody- 225 namic processes is considered. Accordingly, we respect the principle: with a given obser- 226 vation system, either generally inhomogeneous media or macroscopic anisotropic param- 227 eters of the geoelectric media are considered. Some electrical anisotropy studies started in 228 XX century by [29, 42, 43].-----You have once again started literature review why?
Line 233 where the fourth dimension is time -----Reference pls?
Line 246 The Effective Medium Approximation (EMA) theory with the application of effective 246 parameters is based on some assumptions. Foremost, they are related to macroscopic me- 247 dia parameters and their micro composites. This relation generates some kind of anisot- 248 ropy. Thus, this fact should be accordingly correlated with MTS turnaround analysis re- 249 sults (time-frequency series and polar diagrams of apparent resistivity), we observed in 250 Figures 2, 3. Below, we exercise to explain this causal relationship. 251 Appropriately to changes in the stress-strain state (SSS) of the lithosphere, a struc- 252 tural-and-textural rock reorganization occurs. It is expressed in a modifications in the 253 macro anisotropic electromagnetic parameters of the geological media at the macroscale 254 level. These phenomena were first noted by O.B. Barsukov [44]. To study these phenom- 255 ena, it is necessary to investigate the relationship between the rock microstructure and its 256 macroscopic parameters, which is associated with the EMA theory with effective electro- 257 magnetic parameters of a micro-inhomogeneous media. -------should be covered in introduction part
Line 263 Figure 4 ? Have you obtained performed the optical tests or you used some data source? Pls clarify?
Line 266 to 345 should be the part of introduction section.
Lines 346 to 565 should be the part of introduction section.
Pls label the equations as per MDPI format
Figure 5 pls label completely and reference?
Figure 6 reference?
In Figure 6 we observe---- Pls avoid using we in text?
Figures 7, 8 and 9 pls label completely and reference?
The section is too confusing for the readers? Pls provide in sequence or Sr. no, about the steps performed in the study and what were your tests methods adopted?
Results
Line 581 e information content ? what is this ?
Line 607 In Appendix A, general expressions for the effective electric conductivity were obtained. In Appendix B---- Why no discussions on results?
There is very small / no discussion on data base you obtained for the study. Pls expand?
Pls present the results in the sequence of methods used in above section?
Conclusions
1. & 2
Variations in the structural-and-textural characteristics of the rock and its physico- 635 electric properties relations under cracking express irreversible geodynamic processes----
Universally known what your findings said about it?
Macro and microsimulation how you did not clear? pls revisit
Pls provide the conclusions based on your study objectives currently they are mixed and confused.
Pls provide conclusions in Sr. than avoid writing lengthy sentences/paragraphs. Pls try to extract few quantitative conclusions from your study?
Appendix A & B
Line 700 you can only refer 4 and avoid the duplication
Figure B1,B2 and B3 pls label clearly? and provide references?
Pls provide equations numbers.
Pls avoid unnecessary copied details from the references in Appendix A and B. Try to make it simple. Otherwise use the content in Results section for your discussion.
References
Pls enlist few from MDPI also.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the anonymous Reviewer 6 for very helpful and constructive review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised according to the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which are greatly appreciated. Below we present our point-by-point responses.
Point 1: MICRO-INHOMOGENEOUS ROCK --- Pls revisit the word.
Response 1: Unfortunately, we cannot agree with this comment. We use this word combination after the following studies:
- E. Nazarov, L.A. Ostrovsky, I.A. Soustova, A.M. Sutin. Nonlinear acoustics of micro-inhomogeneous media. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, Volume 50, Issue 1, 1988, Pages 65-73, https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(88)90094-5.
- Qin, J., Bian, X., Wang, W. et al. Micro-inhomogeneous structure of liquid Al−Fe alloys. Sci. China Ser. E-Technol. Sci. 41, 182–187 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02919681
- Shermergor, T.D. (1977) Theory of Elasticity of Micro-Inhomogeneous Media. Nauka, Moscow.
Moreover, the main issue is to apply approach for micro-inhomogeneous media.
Point 2: Abstract. Likewise, we consider the relationship --- In place of we pls refer the research.
Response 2: We have rewritten the abstract, the introduction, results and conclusions sections. The Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 3: Line 18 Pls quantify the increase and decrease percentage in electrical resistivity values?
Response 3: It differs from the situation. It could vary from 0.25% up to 80%.
Point 4: Line 19-20 which we obtain during monitoring studies in the Tien Shan ---Pls try to avoid using We instead pls use indirect phrase.
Response 4: We have rewritten the abstract.
Point 5: Line 23 Pls avoid using our data you can say the research data or study data or data obtained. Our data confirm the idea, that continuous electromagnetic monitoring could help to define natural disasters (earthquake) based on variations of integral macroscopic parameters------ How you come up on this conclusion kindly revisit. only earthquake?
Response 5: We added subjective geodynamic. So, for this moment it is mostly earthquakes.
Point 6: Integral macroscopic parameters like???
Response 6: E.g. electrical conductivity.
Point 7: Kindly make the abstract slightly more quantitative. The last line pls add the industrial benefit of your research.
Response 7: Sorry, the topic does not suppose the quantitative objects as it presents the opportunity of applying theory for bianisotropic media. At this time (the beginning) there is no definite KPI of the industrial benefit of our research.
Point 8: Keywords. Pls use few keywords from special issue. Applied Sciences | Special Issue: Natural Hazards and Geomorphology (mdpi.com)
Response 8: We agree with the Reviewer, the keyword “earthquake hazard analysis” was added.
Point 9: Introduction. Line 30 The study of modern geodynamic processes using non-destructive methods----like???
Response 9: Non-destructive methods are mostly on-surface monitoring tools based on remote response, like magnetotelluric soundings (MTS).
Point 10: Line 36 revised sentence.
Response 10: Corrected.
Point 11: Line 38 Changes in macro anisotropic parameters are associated with irreversible deformations 38 of the rock, occurring inside the Earth's crust --- Reference
Response 11: Cambou, B.; Dubujet, P.; Nouguier-Lehon, C. Anisotropy in Granular Materials at Different Scales. Mech. Mater. 2004, 36, 1185–1194, doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2002.12.002.
Point 12: Line 46 calculations.
Response 12: This is given from citation, where “…” is used, when some sentences from the citation are skipped.
Point 13: Line 51 and preventing global natural disasters.---- Not clear how?
Response 13: This is a reasonable question. Tarasov (1997) studied the effect of powerful electromagnetic pulses from an MHD generator used as a source for deep electrical sounding of the crust on the seismic regime of one of the most seismically active regions of Central Asia. It has been established that 6-7 days after the launch of the MHD generator, a noticeable activation of local earthquakes of 8-13 classes occurs in the area. It was concluded that the impact of electromagnetic pulses initiates the release of energy previously accumulated by the environment during tectonic processes, in the form of relatively weak seismic events, and thus can prevent natural disasters.
These conclusions have been confirmed by numerous and long-term studies of the Research Station of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Bishkek, which began in the early 1980s. It has been established that after systematic launches of MHD generators, hazardous earthquakes are not recorded, and the seismic events have become numerous, but small-scaled.
Reference: Makarov et al., 2005. Recent Geodynamics Of Areas Of Intracontinental Collision Mountain Building (Central Asia); Moscow, Scientific World, 400 p.
Point 14: Line 59 In title you are using the word micro
Response 14: We use macro parameters (e.g. averaged value of electrical resistivity) for describing the rock mass, which is not a unit, but a micro-inhomogeneous structure. This is the main point!
Point 15: Line 66 e.g. for elastic deformation are described in [2] and with homogenization [3].--------- Pls remove are described in and with
Response 15: Corrected.
Point 16: Line 68 improvement of methods --- which methods??? Among the methods for calculating effective parameters there are
Response 16: Added to the 4th paragraph. Such as approximation of matrix and inclusions various shapes with different properties [7]. Somehow petrological and cross properties relations, e.g. the general singular approximation (GSA) [6].
Point 17: Line 71 we mean a media -- --- Pls correct we here and onward in all the text and follow the MDPI format.
Response 17: Corrected
Point 18: Line 79 Maxwell equations----- Can you write please ?
Response 18: Please, refer to Section 3. Theory. Eq. 2 and 3.
Point 19: Line 83 methods of electromagnetic monitoring ---- Can you name few?
Response 19: Active one is the sounding by the formation of an electromagnetic field, and passive one - magnetotelluric sounding.
Point 20: Line 92 These factors are lunar-solar tides, fluid dynamics, tectonic processes and technogenic impacts on the lithosphere, leading to changes in the stress-strain state of the geological media.-----Reference
Response 20: Bataleva, E. On the Question of the Relationship of Variations in Geophysical Fields, Lunar-Solar Tidal Effects and Seismic Events. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 127, 02019, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/201912702019.
Point 21: Line 99 This study is aimed at studying the changes in the macroscopic physicoelectric properties of rocks associated with changes in their internal microstructure----Pls avoid to rewrite the same sentence again and again?
Response 21: We have rewritten the abstract, the introduction, results and conclusions sections.
Point 22: Line 106 etc ----- what do you mean by this in references? Pls follow the MDPI guidelines for references.
Response 22: We are sorry, but we could not agree with this comment. This is a MDPI style guidelines from the template. Please, refer to the journal’s requirements, where you could check it. [All references checked with Mendeley desktop app upon right MDPI style].
Point 23: Pls arrange introduction in subheads of introduction about keywords, literature review, research gap, motivation and objectives. Unfortunately, in present form all are missing.
Response 23: The Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 24: Materials and methods, heading. Line 155 in Fundamental practice --- what is this?
Response 24: Corrected. Revised heading is simply “Materials and methods”.
Point 25: Line 117 As shown above, the most sensitive parameter in electromagnetic monitoring is an anisotropy, which is sensitive to changes in the stress-strain state (SSS) of the rock at a quantitative level. It is these changes, that are expressed in the structural-and-textural rearrangement (adjustment) of the rock------Pls avoid rewriting?
Response 25: We have rewritten the abstract, the introduction, results and conclusions sections.
Point 25: Line 120 For such a phenomenological model------ such means ?.
Response 25: This phrase was rewritten.
Point 26: Line 121 experimental data of the Central Tien Shan-----Pls elaborate orientation
Response 26: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment.
Point 27: Line 125 a. The task is reduced to the transform from a micro heterogeneous rock model to a homogeneous-anisotropic one.---- why?
Response 27: It is the simplest one, suitable for magnetotelluric soundings method.
Point 28: Line 130 is respected.-----Not clear
Response 28: This phrase was rewritten.
Point 29: Line 131 As an example of studying the anisotropy parameter on field data, let us refer to the results of passive electromagnetic monitoring of a geodynamically active region.------Review should be covered in Introduction part.
Response 29: Unfortunately, we could not agree with this thesis. As 2.1 and 2.2 these are the materials – different kind of data. In our conception, the Introduction gives only brief description about existed research.
Point 30: Line 145 Phoenix MTU-5------ Pls explain
Response 30: It is explained right in the next paragraph. “The Phoenix MTU-5 equipment typically records variations in five components of the electromagnetic field (Ex, Ey, Hx, Hy, Hz) for horizontally-layered media”.
Point 31: Line 146 = ê ú ë û E Z -- Pls provide equation number
Response 31: We are sorry, but we could not agree with this comment. This formula is inside the text and do not need to be numbered, as we do not use it in next parts. However, we rewrote it.
Point 32: Line 147 apparent resistivity ---- does not present in equation/relation?
Response 32: The general formula the apparent resistivity , where ω is observing frequency, μ0 - vacuum magnetic permeability [39].
Point 33: Line 148 e phases of the impedance ----Not present in equation
Response 33: Sorry to skip it. But this manuscript is not about it. If the respected reviewer really interested in magnetotelluric soundings, it is easy to look into
Berdichevsky, M.N.; Dmitriev, V.I. Models and Methods of Magnetotellurics; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; ISBN 978-3-540-77811-0.
In this case, these formulae are general and fundamental. This part will be too large for this kind of papers.
Point 34: Line 153 the media ----- like ???
Response 34: Real rocks. The Tien Shan region, with its complex mountainous and geological conditions, exhibits significant heterogeneity [41], which can be described in terms of bianisotropic media.
Point 35: Line 158 pls enter equation numbers
Response 35: There is a number for equation.
Point 36: Pls label Figure 1 completely--- what red and black lines indicating, axis titles at y and x coordinates etc.
Response 36: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. All explanations are given in legend by numbers. This is a geographical map. This is part of the Earth globe with geographical coordinates.
Point 37: Line 190 Figure 2 anisotropic properties (TFS)-----like ???
Response 37: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. Please, look attentively upper in the text. “The TFS shows the variations in apparent resistivity (Δρk), which represents the difference between the average and current values along the considered azimuth within a 72-hour period. This initial step allows for the analysis of anisotropy in physicoelectric parameters under different coordinate system orientations over continuous time.”
Point 38: Why kambarata point? any specific reason?
Response 38: Because this is a very good and accessible example of industrial explosion with initiated earthquakes. We added: “Previously some results showed good evidences of temporal variations. The one of the widely researched study is a very powerful example of a geodynamic man-made event with all known parameters (time, yield, volume) associated with initiated geodynamic natural events is called Kambarata blast-fill dam experiment”.
Point 39: If figures 2 and 3 are results? why not to place in results section pls examine?
Response 39: No, these figures were results from previous studies. Now, they prove the temporal character of variation, even the observation system/point/tool/instrumentation rest the same without any alterations.
Point 40: Line 185 Kambarata explosion (22 Dec. 2009, 11:54 UTC, Kyrgyzstan ------ if you used data of year 2009?
Response 40: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. It was a successful experiment with real man-made geodynamic event – explosion. During 72-hour period [25, 42].
Please, refer to Bataleva, E.A.; Batalev, V.Y.; Rybin, A.K. On the Question of the Interrelation between Variations in Crustal Electrical Conductivity and Geodynamical Processes. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth 2013, 49, 402–410, doi: 10.1134/S1069351313030038.
Bataleva, E.A. Processing, Analysis and Interpretation of Time-Frequency Series for Magnetotelluric Monitoring. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 350, 012053, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/350/1/012053.
Point 41: Please label Figure 3?
Response 41: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. All axis are labeled. The title is: Figure 3. Polar diagrams showing the variations in apparent resistivity (ρk) over time at a fixed point before and after an explosive earthquake. The diagrams depict the dependence of resistivity on the sounding period (T) and azimuth (α) in degrees (Az). Figure 3a represents the data 12 hours before the earthquake, while Figure 3b shows the data 6 hours after the earthquake.
Point 42: Figure 3 why after 6 hrs of earthquake?
Response 42: This is a topic for the discussion, of course. So, clearly, we made polar diagrams for entire 72-hours range with a 1-hour step. However, in Figure 3 we show only fine bright polar diagrams for apparent resistivity (ρk), which occur at a certain time with anomalous behavior. The caption of 12 hours before the earthquake is made in calm position with maximum of lunar-solar tide for vertical component (An), referring to Figure 2. When the panel of 45° azimuth (dark blue spot) differs from other time-frequency panels. Then we look into next maximum of lunar-solar cycle, which is lying just in 6 hours after the triggered earthquake. This situation coincide with changes in orthogonal azimuths. It is obvious in Figure 2 on panel for 135°. It means that this explosion with triggered earthquake altered the rock mass stress-strain state. Therefore, the data (polar diagrams) showed the difference between initial (calm) and transformed (blasted) condition states. These changes are reflected in the restructuring of rocks during geodynamic processes.
Point 43: Line 206 Based on numerous field experiments (Figure 1), we conclude---You can not conclude here ---
Response 43: Please, evaluate the revised version. “Based on numerous field experiments (Figure 1), it has been observed that modern geodynamic processes lead to changes in the structural-and-textural characteristics of rocks. These changes manifest as both reversible processes, such as the closure and disclosure of cracks, and irreversible processes associated with fracturing”.
Point 44: Line 217-228 -----You have once again started literature review why?
Response 44: This is the justification to why we use certain equations in the following Manuscript text.
Point 45: Line 233 where the fourth dimension is time -----Reference pls?
Response 45: Please, now reference is given.
Berdichevsky, M.N.; Dmitriev, V.I. Models and Methods of Magnetotellurics; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008; ISBN 978-3-540-77811-0.
Point 46: Line 246-257 magnetic parameters of a micro-inhomogeneous media. -------should be covered in introduction part
Response 46: Please, see revised version.
Point 47: Line 263 Figure 4 ? Have you obtained performed the optical tests or you used some data source? Pls clarify?
Response 47: Optical test were not provided, as Dr. Vlad Batalev was making experiments with electrical resistivity. We are not the same authors. A coauthor is Elena Bataleva.
Point 48: Line 266 to 345 should be the part of introduction section.
Response 48: Corrected.
Point 49: Lines 346 to 565 should be the part of introduction section.
Response 49: We are sorry, but we could not agree with this comment. This is the main part of the paper.
Point 50: Pls label the equations as per MDPI format
Response 50: Corrected.
Point 51: Figure 5 pls label completely and reference?
Response 51: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. This is a very simplified picture, made ourselves. Therefore, there is no reference.
Point 52: Figure 6 reference?
Response 52: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. All explanations are given right below the figure inside the text.
Point 53: In Figure 6 we observe---- Pls avoid using we in text?
Response 53: We changed to “ it can be observed”. However, this is not mistake, but common style in English papers. You could link to the published paper in MDPI
Şahin, E.; Yüce, H. Prediction of Water Leakage in Pipeline Networks Using Graph Convolutional Network Method. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137427
Point 54: Figures 7, 8 and 9 pls label completely and reference?
Response 54: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. All explanations are given right below the figure inside the text.
Point 55: The section is too confusing for the readers? Pls provide in sequence or Sr. no, about the steps performed in the study and what were your tests methods adopted?
Response 55: We are sorry, but we could not understand this comment. We provide a theory and not any kind of tests.
Point 56: Results. Line 581 e information content? what is this?
Response 56: This is a Discussion.
Point 57: Line 607 In Appendix A, general expressions for the effective electric conductivity were obtained. In Appendix B---- Why no discussions on results?
Response 57: We are sorry, there is paragraph. “Appendix B explores several models of rock deformations and their reflection in macro anisotropic electrical parameters that are relevant for active electromagnetic monitoring considering different kinds of the monitoring system configuration”.
Point 58: There is very small / no discussion on data base you obtained for the study. Pls expand? Pls present the results in the sequence of methods used in above section?
Response 58: Thank you. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 59: Conclusions. 1. & 2. Variations in the structural-and-textural characteristics of the rock and its physico- 635 electric properties relations under cracking express irreversible geodynamic processes---- Universally known what your findings said about it?
Response 59: It could be verified in time with non-destructive monitoring such as magnetotelluric soundings.
Point 60: Macro and microsimulation how you did not clear? pls revisit. Pls provide the conclusions based on your study objectives currently they are mixed and confused.
Response 60: We rewrote the abstract, the introduction, results and conclusions sections.
Point 61: Appendix A & B. Line 700 you can only refer 4 and avoid the duplication.
Response 61: We are sorry, but we could not agree with this comment. These are different parts or the research.
Point 62: Figure B1,B2 and B3 pls label clearly? and provide references?
Response 62: We are sorry, but we could not agree with this comment. These figures have an illustrative character.
Point 63: Pls provide equations numbers.
Response 63: Corrected.
Point 64: Pls avoid unnecessary copied details from the references in Appendix A and B. Try to make it simple. Otherwise, use the content in Results section for your discussion.
Response 64: Thank you. Please, refer to the revised version.
Point 65: References. Pls enlist few from MDPI also.
Response 65: There are few MDPI references from Applied Sciences, they marked in yellow.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
It's good to see this paper being revised carefully. I am satisfied with this version. The layout can be improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable rating opinion and comments.
Reviewer 6 Report
Hi Authors
Thanks for submitting revised version.
Line 17,18 What are effective parameters?
Line 18 How processes were correlated with parameters?
Line 21 this relationship? which relationship?
Lines 25. 26 only applies to earth quakes? only
out of geological media, specifically electric conductivity (σ), relative permittivity (ε), and magnetic permeability (μ) only electric conductivity has application potential kindly revisit last part of abstract.
How earthquake hazard analysis was used and what was the quantitative findings ?
Line 38 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Line 40 physical properties like?
Line 43 these processes? like
Line 45 new effects can be observed? We are sorry, but we could not understand this statement.
Line 49 tions. … what is this? why phrase in inverted commas?
Tien Shan region ? Is it seismically hazardous region ?
Line 63 The purpose of this study is to investigate the distribution patterns (of what) and establish a theoretical basis for the macro anisotropic properties of rocks and their relationship with modern geodynamic processes in the Earth's crust. We are sorry, but we could not understand this statement.
Line 65 They involve ---? who?
Line 79 such in reference? can ypu pls write few?
Line 83 with layered bianisotropic media ? Real or hypothetical?
Line 87 We here and onward in all the text --- Any reason?
Line 104 Accordingly, we respect the principle: with a given observation system, either generally inhomogeneous media or macroscopic anisotropic parameters of the geoelectric media are considered. We are sorry, but we could not understand this statement.
Line 107 object can be objective. Pls revisit
Line 133 Summary outline: for what literature review?
Line 81, 134 Novelty ply try to avoid repetitions
Introduction did not have clear research objectives pls revisit. This will help to map your conclusions.
Line 155 Understanding the structural-and-textural reorganization of rocks and changes in 156 their physicoelectric properties during the development of geological media is an important research.......We are sorry, but we could not understand this statement.
Line 163 s mentioned earlier, why repeating.
Figure 2 some text not clearly readable
Pls revisit Figures captions and try to bring information in text boxes
Can you pls simplify section 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 to highlight what materials and methods you have used in research.
Till line 565 its merely literature review. Is it review paper?
Line 567 The geodynamic processes monitoring-----In presence of Russian Academy of Sciences and other stakeholders what Authors did as study contribution. I am sorry but I could not get it yet
Figures 10 and 11 the Authors first claimed contribution need lot of labeling for clear rationalization. The logic for development of models are not provided.
Figure 10 and 11 are these typical?
Figure 12 near the borehole ----- any distance range?
Conclusions --- Unfortunately these all are known facts as recommended earlier pls devise from your research findings/novelty.
Thanks
Author Response
Thank you for your opinion. Please, find an attached response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
