How to Achieve Sustainably Beneficial Uses of Marine Sediments in Colombia?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors address the intersection of two important topics - management of contaminated marine sediments and beneficial use of dredged sediments - in the context of developing sustainable solutions. This could be an exceptional paper with significant contributions. This reviewer particularly liked the concept of some illustrations (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4). Unfortunately, this reviewer found the text never clearly identified its focus. Instead, it repeated a lot of well-known information about sediment treatment technologies. This reviewer encourages the authors to make a second attempt with clearly stated objectives, then text to support those objectives.

Two specific comments:

1.  “(Authors’ elaboration.)” appears at the end of Figures 1 & 3 captions. This reviewer is unsure of the meaning of this phrase. If it is purely original, this would not be needed? If the authors modified the figure from another source, shouldn’t it say “modified from xyz 2019”?

2.  Table 1 footnote *** is defined as “Contaminant level higher than AL2”. It appears that the value is flagged if it is higher than ANY of the 4 criteria listed in the table, not necessarily all. Might be more accurate to define *** as “Contaminant level higher than at least one of the reference SQLs."

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript titled in “How to Achieve Sustainably Beneficial Uses of Marine Sediments including Dredged Materials in Colombia?” provides regulatory frameworks for the beneficial uses of marine sediments, including dredged materials (DMs), which may be used in selecting optimal remediation alternatives leading to the sustainability of CMS by achieving their beneficial uses. Before considering this manuscript for publication, the authors should consider the following points in any revision as follows:

1.      What is SQGs? The authors should indicate the full name of an abbreviation when it first appears.

2.      What are migration repair techniques?

3.      Why does vitrification not work for deposits containing large amounts of conductive conduit metal?

4.      What does Figure 3 mean? It will be better to explain Figure 3 further.

5.      Why is electrochemistry efficient to remove volatile HHMs?

6.      The authors should emphasize the significance of Sustainable Development Goals in Introduction.

7.      The corresponding data of China should be supplemented and analyzed.

8.      For “3.2.3. Electrochemical technologies” section, chemical technologies have included electrochemical technologies. For “3.2.5. Thermal technologies” section, physical technologies have included thermal technologies. The inclusion relation and classification should be clear.

9.      The authors should introduce some advanced technologies to help readers more understand the importance of sustainability.

10.  What is the scientific problem in this manuscript? What methods are used to solve this problem?

11.  There are some problems in the format of Table 1 of this manuscript. For example, the upstream and downstream lines are not aligned.

12.  The typesetting of this manuscript is somewhat messy. For example, on Line 257-263, which obviously does not use the format of alignment at both ends.

13.  Can the authors explain the meaning of the illustration in Figure 2?

14.  Many recent publications related to marine sediments have been published, such as Energy & Fuels, 2021, 35(18): 14569-14579, Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2021, 66(11): 4064-4074, et al. In order to help readers better understand the important of this work, these references should be cited, correspondingly.

I will be happy to recommend for publication a revised version of the manuscript in Sustainability.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper can be published with few changes on introduction and conclusions.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This draft is a substantial improvement. However, the confused messaging still exists. It seems that the primary focus is on the beneficial use of contaminated sediments after treatment. But, some areas fail to note this restriction, implying the paper addresses the broader topic of beneficial use of dredged sediments. To this reviewer, the confusion starts with the title and continues throughout the manuscript.  

A few other specific comments:

Line 41 – Dredged material not previously defined as “DM” in the main text, but it is defined in the abstract. Not sure if that is OK. In contrast, CMS is defined in the abstract (line 14) and the main text (line 37).

Line 42 – “its” is inconsistent with DMs

 

Line 256 – costs limit alternatives in developing countries as well.

 

 

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carefully addressed all the issues I raised previously. I recommend it for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer would like to thank the authors for their efforts to revise the manuscript. This version is much more clear than prior versions. I just have few,  mostly minor, editorial suggestions before publication.

My most significant concern is that the title is still misleading. The title suggests that is about sustainable management of ALL marine sediments, not just contaminated marine sediments. The title is probably unnecessarily long and could be shortened some and still make the paper focus clear.

Some minor editorial comments:

 

Lines 15,22, 28 in abstract + others in text – why is contaminated in parentheses? e.g. almost every notation indicates "(contaminated) marine sediments"

I think my prior note about CMS was confused. I don't have an issue with it, I was just asking if it needed to be defined in the abstract and then again in the paper. I just don't know. I do think that defining contaminated marine sediments as CMS early on and using CMS from that from that point forward would be fine.

 Line 36 – should “have been changed” be “have changed”? This also implies that ALL marine sediments are contaminated, contrary to other statements. Consider including a qualifier.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf