Fractal Analysis of Mining Wastewater Time Series Parameters: Balkhash Urban Region and Sayak Ore District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and relevant. It is devoted to pollution as a result of mining and metallurgical plants in the ore region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This area is important because the cities of Balkhash and Priozersk are located there, and the metropolis of Alma-Ata is located some distance away. Lake Balkhash, which is of great importance for providing water to the population, industry, as well as for fishing, is also affected. At the same time, it is unclear what kind of work was carried out in this direction – the authors should reflect this.

Such problems are usually solved using standard chemical analysis. Unlike traditional studies, the authors applied modern physical and mathematical methods, which gave interesting results. I am not aware of any work using such a methodology. This is new and relevant.

At the same time, the article in the proposed form does not quite meet the existing requirements. The Introduction and the Literature review take up too much space – 5 pages, while not all statements are supported by references to the sources used. It is advisable to shorten this part of the article by increasing the number of literary references.

At the same time, the results occupy only page 9-11, and the discussions 11-13! Obviously, it is necessary to redistribute the material between the parts of the article, reducing the Introduction with a Literary review and expanding the Results and Discussions. I would like the article to be more visual and informative – it contains only 2 tables and 4 figures. You can add graphs and illustrations to the Results. Some parts of the Introduction and the Literature Review can be moved into the Discussion.  The authors need to think about supplemenary material, especially since I did not find any additional materials in the submitted form. The conclusions drawn by the authors correspond to the actual data.

Specific remarks:

L. 50 – subscript characters are needed

L. 99 – not scans, but scarns

Fig. 1 – the names of the city and Lake Balkhash are written differently, the caption to the picture does not indicate that the yellow color indicates the basin of Lake Balkhash

Author Response

The article is interesting and relevant. It is devoted to pollution as a result of mining and metallurgical plants in the ore region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This area is important because the cities of Balkhash and Priozersk are located there, and the metropolis of Alma-Ata is located some distance away. Lake Balkhash, which is of great importance for providing water to the population, industry, as well as for fishing, is also affected. At the same time, it is unclear what kind of work was carried out in this direction – the authors should reflect this.

Thank you for your comments. The peculiarities of the study region and possible consequences of pollution are described in the first section. The results described in the article can help in carrying out work aimed at ensuring environmental safety in the region.

Such problems are usually solved using standard chemical analysis. Unlike traditional studies, the authors applied modern physical and mathematical methods, which gave interesting results. I am not aware of any work using such a methodology. This is new and relevant. At the same time, the article in the proposed form does not quite meet the existing requirements. The Introduction and the Literature review take up too much space – 5 pages, while not all statements are supported by references to the sources used. It is advisable to shorten this part of the article by increasing the number of literary references. At the same time, the results occupy only page 9-11, and the discussions 11-13! Obviously, it is necessary to redistribute the material between the parts of the article, reducing the Introduction with a Literary review and expanding the Results and Discussions. I would like the article to be more visual and informative – it contains only 2 tables and 4 figures. You can add graphs and illustrations to the Results. Some parts of the Introduction and the Literature Review can be moved into the Discussion.  The authors need to think about supplemenary material, especially since I did not find any additional materials in the submitted form.  The conclusions drawn by the authors correspond to the actual data.

Thank you for your comments. We have combined the introduction and literature review, as recommended by another reviewer. We also moved some of the material to the discussion and corrected the references in the literature review. The article reflects the results of the analysis of all available data, which are included in the Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13899489 , Table S1: Data on Water Discharges from Copper Ore Extraction in the Sayak Ore Basin.

The metal ore mining facility provided information for the study in a limited form due to commercial confidentiality.

L. 50 – subscript characters are needed

Fixed

L. 99 – not scans, but scarns

Fixed

Fig. 1 – the names of the city and Lake Balkhash are written differently, the caption to the picture does not indicate that the yellow color indicates the basin of Lake Balkhash

Fixed

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs fractal R/S analysis to assess wastewater discharge indicators from Kazakhstan's metal ore mining facility. It reveals significant increases in flow rate and electrical conductivity, though conductivity levels remain below critical thresholds for health. The analysis indicates a controlled and stable process for emissions, yet it lacks comprehensive data from all deposits, limiting a full assessment of environmental impact. Despite these findings, existing research highlights high chronic disease risks for the local population, underscoring the need for effective environmental monitoring systems.

 

Please find my comments below,

1. No papers from 2024 are added, and the two papers from 2023 are from the same journal; one is a self-citation. Please update your literature.

2. The introduction should be combined with a literature review, not separate sections. Please fix this.

3. The equations don't have any corresponding numbers for identification. Please add them.

4. Fig 1 and 2 are good quality, but geo-maps must contain the direction of water flow and distance.

5. The units of turbidity, flow and electrical conductivity are missing from tables and figures. 

6. Has Fractal analysis been previously employed for such studies? If so, that needs to be referenced. Also, a rationale has to clearly be provided as to how fractal analysis contributes to a better understanding of pollution.

7. Line 292. Please double-check the unit for conductivity. It is not 400 micro Siemens per centimetre; it should not exceed 400. The EPA has different guidelines for different water sources, so generalising it to 400 is not recommended.

Author Response

This study employs fractal R/S analysis to assess wastewater discharge indicators from Kazakhstan's metal ore mining facility. It reveals significant increases in flow rate and electrical conductivity, though conductivity levels remain below critical thresholds for health. The analysis indicates a controlled and stable process for emissions, yet it lacks comprehensive data from all deposits, limiting a full assessment of environmental impact. Despite these findings, existing research highlights high chronic disease risks for the local population, underscoring the need for effective environmental monitoring systems.

1. No papers from 2024 are added, and the two papers from 2023 are from the same journal; one is a self-citation. Please update your literature.

Thank you for your comments. We have added article акщь 2024 in this area of research [18]. We also removed the article with self-citation [15].

2. The introduction should be combined with a literature review, not separate sections. Please fix this.

Thank you for your comments. We have combined the introduction and the literature review. Also, as recommended by another reviewer, we have moved some of the material to the discussion and corrected the references in the literature review.

3. The equations don't have any corresponding numbers for identification. Please add them.

Fixed

4. Fig 1 and 2 are good quality, but geo-maps must contain the direction of water flow and distance.

The unnecessary volume of mine waters discharge, previously purified by stepwise sedimentation, is carried out by a pipeline with a diameter of 159 mm to the terrain located in a southerly direction relative to the rock dumps of this deposit. The flow of discharges occurs in the direction of the Balkhash lake. This information has been added to the article. The exact location of the drain cannot be indicated due to the commercial secrecy of the production facility. A distance scale has been added to Figures 1 and 2.

5. The units of turbidity, flow and electrical conductivity are missing from tables and figures. 

Fixed

6. Has Fractal analysis been previously employed for such studies? If so, that needs to be referenced. Also, a rationale has to clearly be provided as to how fractal analysis contributes to a better understanding of pollution.

Yes, fractal analysis has been used for similar studies. This is indicated in the literature review in [16, 18, 28, 31], etc. The long-term stability of pollutant concentrations, turbidity levels, and electrical conductivity of effluents suggests that water quality parameters can be effectively predicted and regulated. These findings are significant for the advancement of urban development, particularly in ensuring environmental safety and promoting the sustainable growth of urban agglomerations, including those in proximity to mining and metal ore processing areas.

7. Line 292. Please double-check the unit for conductivity. It is not 400 micro Siemens per centimetre; it should not exceed 400. The EPA has different guidelines for different water sources, so generalising it to 400 is not recommended.

Fixed