Evaluation of Land Use Adaptation by Sequential Extraction of Soil Trace Elements at an Abandoned Gold and Copper Refinery Site in Northern Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study presented here  used soil background investigation out of the site and the sequential extraction procedures for arsenic and copper to assess the re-utilization potential of brownfield at the site. The study is useful, and adds new knowledge to the research communities. However, I have some concern with the manuscript before it could be published in science journals.

1. The language need further polish. Some punctuation mark was not properly used, even in abstract.
2. The most important place need further improvement. The data presented was very raw, not thoroughly analyzed, which will prevent the study from being thoroughly understood by others, not mention to cite the results. I believe there will be new findings, or even different conclusions once further analysis performed.
3. The reference is short and, old. There are some latest citations, however, based on the enormous publication everyday associated with similar studies, there could be more discussion based on more resent, and more developed studies published already.

I would like to see a further revised version of the manuscript, and hope the suggestions provided above will be useful for the further revision of the manuscript.. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the evaluation of land use of an historical gold and copper mine in Taiwan. It is a very interesting and exciting case study of the tension that exists between and the careful balancing of health and pollution criteria and historical interests and in that sense it is relevant and interesting to the readership of Sustainability. There are significant learnings in this case for many historical industrial sites around the globe.

The setting and historical and current use of the site is well described by the authors and the dilemma around opening up the site to the wider public is well elucidated.

The strategy of sequential extraction of heavy metals ions from the soil samples is not new, but is used here in a constructive and conclusive manner. I do think the soil chemistry is somewhat thin on, in general.

As said, I find the paper  somewhat light on on the academic/soil science side of things, I do not have a major problem with this, but whether that is acceptable to the journal is really ultimately up to the editors.

In order to make the manuscript easily accessible to the wider public some extensive editing of the language will be necessary. 

I only have a few  structural comments that the authors should attend to:

• right from the onset the paper only looks at As and Cu as the potentially harmful soil constituents. It would be useful to know whether there are any other potential pollutants present in these soils, e.g. Pb, etc. from processing/smelting wastes, etc, or as natural backgrounds. A detailed typical assay of the soil would be very helpful in that regard.
• In their conclusion, the authors comment that wrt to the three sites with concerning Cu levels "proper measures of control and isolation" are required. This would need to be addressed in some more detail, e.g. what is "proper" and what could this consist of?
• I missed some more detailed critical discussion around the dealing with high natural background levels, as is the case here, of pollutants in legislation. The authors should provide some context here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting topic, soil remediation, contaminated area evaluation and residues.

Is therea data from the beggining of explorative area or monitoring along?

Is there any data from bioindicators, humans or animals ?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that lack of innovation is the biggest problem. The overall scientific content and degree of novelty are not high enough, and it is difficult to obtain the significant information. After a careful examination, I find that this manuscript can not be accepted for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised extensively. I have only one suggestion.

Please present data as means with standard error or deviation based on replicated measurements, instead of raw data compilation.

Thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf