Geochemical and Microbiological Composition of Soils and Tailings Surrounding the Komsomolsk Tailings, Kemerovo Region, Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Lack of Originality: the article did not present a unique or innovative perspective on the topic. The article described metal and microbial composition of soil samples around the Komsomolsk tailings. Two methods were used for the study, soil chemical composition was determined by ICP-MS analysis and the microbiological soil composition was determined by the plate count method. There is no originality in this work and ideas and arguments put forth were not sufficiently distinct from existing literature or previous discussions on the subject matter. Other methods for the biodiversity study could be used such as the next generation sequencing which is a more sensitive and accurate method.  Moreover, the methods used to genetically identify the isolated bacteria are note well described. The author claimed that he used the gene 16S RNA analysis method, however he has not described the primers used for the PCR. Moreover, this method is based on the sequencing of the gene coding for the 16S ribosomal RNA and not the 16S RNA as described by the author.
2. Weak Structure and Organization:  issues with the overall structure and organization of the article. The flow of ideas was unclear, and the article lacked a coherent framework. This made it difficult for readers to follow the author's line of reasoning.
3. Lack of scientific rigor:  deficiencies in the methodology, analysis, and interpretation of research findings. The manuscript contains many errors. Here are some examples that indicate a lack of scientific rigor: Line 144, the author used “agarose instead of Agar”. Line 146 : the author has not used the wright unit for measurement (µL instead of mg) : 200 µL of soil.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable comments, we tried have to and correct them. For comments that were not corrected, we have attempted to explain why we chose to do it that way. Also, we hired a professional, scientific English grammar editing service to assist with the manuscript’s grammar.

Best regards,

Natalya Abrosimova

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract may be recast with a clear objective and in what way the study will be useful for containing pollution.

Line 75: It is mentioned that this study will be useful in the decision-making process for effective environmental measures, but in what way it will be useful it should be mentioned.

Line 78: Instead of object please mention objective

Line 113-114: Microbial analysis performed in dry soil?

Line 172: 20 soil samples or 28?

Line 225: Instead of cultivated better to use cultured

Line 263: Soil Physico

Interestingly, in some of the samples, fungal isolates have not been detected. Is this due to the inhibition by Cu or due to other factors? The pH of the respective soil samples may be presented where fungal isolates were not detected.

Generally, the concentration of trace elements is presented in ppm or ppb. So better to mention this unit instead of g/t.

Conclusion should be with a clear suggestion for containing the pollution and policy decisions

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable. We tried to consider all the comments and make corrections. Also, we hired a professional, scientific English grammar editing service to assist with the manuscript’s grammar.

Best regards,

Natalya Abrosimova

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This reviewer does not have any major concerns for the manuscript. The methods are adequate and results demonstrate enough novelty to be published in this journal.

Minor English editing might improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. 

Best regards,

Natalya Abrosimova

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The author has indeed improved the article, but it still does not meet the scientific requirements to be published in a journal such as Bacteria.
2. Here are some comments that I raised but there are still others that I did not comment:

a.       Line  54 : “Trace elements such as As, Cd, Cr, Hg, and Ni”, abbreviations have been used in the abstract and in the text, the author must give the full name of the element and after that used the corresponding abbreviation.

b.        

c.       Lines 151 and  152 “Bacteria were incubated with an ordinary Lysogeny broth medium with 1.5% agar” If you put 1,5% of agar you will never obtain a solid medium. Maybe the author means 15% instead of 1,5% .

d.       In this paragraph the author has explained the method used for the colony forming units determination:

Thus, 1 µL of the resulting suspension corresponded to 1/100 µL of the initial mixture. The resulting suspension was seeded onto two pairs of Petri dishes, with 1 µL and 1/10 µL of suspension per pair.

However it seems that the author has plated 1µL and 1/10µL of the soil solution, how can the author plate theses volumes on plates?

e.       Line 169 : “16S ribosomal RNA PCR fragment was amplified using following primers: 16S_for: 5' TAC GG(C/T) TAC CTT GTT ACG ACT 3', 16S_rev: 5' AGA GTT TGA TC(A/C) TGG CTC 170 A 3'”.In this paragraph the author has inverted the two primers. Moreover, the fragment that is amplified by PCR is the 16SrDNA fragment gene not the 16S ribosomal RNA.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find in attached file our answers and corrections according reviewer comments.

Best regards,
Natalya Abrosimova

Author Response File: Author Response.docx