Selected Properties of Soil-like Substrates Made from Mine Coal Waste and Their Effect on Plant Yields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Żukowska et al.

Thank you for the opportunity in reading your manuscript entitled ‘Selected properties of soil-like substrates made from mine coal 2 waste and their effect on plant yields’.

This study assessed the characteristics of soil-like substrates derived from coal mining waste, incorporating varying proportions of sewage sludge and waste mineral wool. The findings revealed notable distinctions in the coal mining waste substrate, including significantly enhanced sorption capacity, alkaline cation content, and pH compared to anthropogenic soils. Moreover, the waste exhibited significantly higher levels of organic carbon, nitrogen, assimilable K and Mg, while assimilable P levels were lower. Substrates enriched with sewage sludge exhibited a marked increase in organic carbon, nitrogen, and assimilable forms of phosphorus and magnesium, resulting in optimized sorption properties. Plant yields cultivated on coal mining waste were significantly inferior to those on anthropogenic soil. However, substrates supplemented with sewage sludge and mineral wool displayed a substantially higher yield potential.

I found the study to be interesting and the results compelling. However, I would like to address some concerns regarding the writing style and clarity of the manuscript. Firstly, the aim of the study, as presented in lines 102-108, is quite lengthy and challenging to follow. It would greatly benefit from being more concise and straightforward. Additionally, I noticed several paragraphs in the introduction and discussion sections that consist of only one sentence, which could be revised for better flow and readability.

I would also suggest using the active voice whenever possible, as it not only helps in conciseness but also enhances the overall readability of the text. Furthermore, considering the extensive chemistry-related results, it may be worth considering moving some of this information to the supplementary material to maintain focus on the main result, which is plant production and its contribution to sustainability.

Regarding the statistical methods and analyses, I found them to be unclear. For example, it is not specified how many vases were used in the experiment (as mentioned in line 128). Additionally, the description of the response and explanatory variables is lacking, even though they are mentioned somewhere in the results. It would be helpful to clearly state what was tested in each analysis, along with the sampling size, and clearly define the response and explanatory variables. The mention of three replicates is not explicitly outlined in the methods section.

Therefore, I strongly recommend revising and clarifying the manuscript's writing style, particularly in terms of concise and coherent aims, using active voice. Additionally, providing clearer descriptions of the statistical methods, analyses, and variables used would greatly enhance the validity of the results.

I strongly recommend revising and clarifying the manuscript's writing style, particularly in terms of concise and coherent aims, using active voice.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2523183

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Reviewer for your time and constructive, inspiring comments and remarks, which were valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guides significance to this research. We studied comments carefully and made correction which I hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewer’s comments are listed below.

I hope that the Editor and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Sustainability.

Thank you very much for managing our manuscript.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Magdalena Myszura-Dymek
with co-authors

 

Comments and Suggestions

1. I found the study to be interesting and the results compelling. However, I would like to address some concerns regarding the writing style and clarity of the manuscript. Firstly, the aim of the study, as presented in lines 102-108, is quite lengthy and challenging to follow. It would greatly benefit from being more concise and straightforward. Additionally, I noticed several paragraphs in the introduction and discussion sections that consist of only one sentence, which could be revised for better flow and readability.

Response: The aim of the work was rewritten and corrected, lines x-x. In the introductory and overview chapters, individual paragraphs have been combined to make the text more better flow and readability.

2. I would also suggest using the active voice whenever possible, as it not only helps in conciseness but also enhances the overall readability of the text. Furthermore, considering the extensive chemistry-related results, it may be worth considering moving some of this information to the supplementary material to maintain focus on the main result, which is plant production and its contribution to sustainability.

Response: Regarding the active voice remark, the paper has been corrected by the English language editor at MDPI. After considering the comment related to the extensive results, we have decided that Table 1 has been moved to the Supplementary Fille. The other tables with the results (pH, EC, HA, BC, CEC, V, TOC, TN, C/N, P, K, Mg and Yield of plants grown) remain unchanged in the text in accordance with the title of the work "Selected properties of soil-like substrates made from mine coal waste and their effect on plant yields”.

3. Regarding the statistical methods and analyses, I found them to be unclear. For example, it is not specified how many vases were used in the experiment (as mentioned in line 128). Additionally, the description of the response and explanatory variables is lacking, even though they are mentioned somewhere in the results. It would be helpful to clearly state what was tested in each analysis, along with the sampling size, and clearly define the response and explanatory variables. The mention of three replicates is not explicitly outlined in the methods section.

Response: Statistical methods and analyzes have been improved and clearly described. We supplemented the information about the number of vases used in the experiment, described what was tested in each analysis, what was the sample size and defined the variables.

4. Therefore, I strongly recommend revising and clarifying the manuscript's writing style, particularly in terms of concise and coherent aims, using active voice. Additionally, providing clearer descriptions of the statistical methods, analyses, and variables used would greatly enhance the validity of the results.

Response: As described in reply to comment #3, we have made all recommended corrections in the text.

5. Comments on the Quality of English Language.

I strongly recommend revising and clarifying the manuscript's writing style, particularly in terms of concise and coherent aims, using active voice.

Response: The work has been revised by the English language editor from MDPI. In the responses to the review, the work after language correction was posted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Selected properties of soil-like substrates made from mine coal waste and their effect on plant yields” evaluate the suitability of coal mining waste as a mineral component of soil-like substrates. The results help to optimize the management of extractive coal waste and waste. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2523183

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Reviewer for your time and constructive, inspiring comments and remarks, which were valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guides significance to this research. We studied comments carefully and made correction which I hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewer’s comments are listed below.

I hope that the Editor and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Sustainability.

Thank you very much for managing our manuscript.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Magdalena Myszura-Dymek
with co-authors

 

Comments and Suggestions

1. The aim of the study was to evaluation of the properties of soil-like substrates, and the results was also showed that significantly higher sorption capacity, content of alkaline cations and pH, significantly higher content of organic carbon, nitrogen and assimilable forms of K and Mg, and lower content of assimilable P. However, we cannot find any physics index, or microbiology properties of soil-like substrates. The authors should discuss these factors.

Response: According to the title, the aim of the work was to evaluate selected properties of soil-like substrates. In the work, we focused on properties such as: pH, EC, HA, BC, CEC, V, TOC, TN, C/N, P, K, Mg and Yield of plants grown. While carrying out the experiment assessing the soil-like substrate from coal waste, we analyzed a wide spectrum of their properties. The macrobiological properties together with the characterization of the quality of humus compounds have been included in another paper, which is in preparation. Physical properties of soil-like substrates will be discussed in the next paper after confirmation of the test results obtained in the field experiment, which is in progress.

 

2. The study was carried out in a pot experiment, white mustard and maize were select to test. Their representation needed to be clarified.

Response: Referring to this remark, we have included the answers regarding the choice of white mustard and corn in the discussion section, lines 568-576.

 

3. The results in “Table 10. Yield of plants grown” should that the yield potential of the CW_1 substrate (100% extraction waste), expressed the lowest compared to the other treatments. They are some reasons. One of the important reasons was the experimental design was flawed.

Response: The test results obtained and presented in Table 10 (currently Table 9) indicate that the yield potential of the CW_1 soil-like substrate was lower than that of the degraded anthropopodic soil. In the discussion chapter, we point out that the reason for this is, among others, the extremely low content of available phosphorus. In addition, the results are consistent with the results of other authors who indicate that to improve the yield potential of such substrates, it is necessary to supplement them with materials rich in organic matter. This was also confirmed by our research results, which showed that the addition of municipal sewage sludge to the substrate significantly increased the yield of cultivated plants. Lines 574-590.

 

4. Discussion part of the manuscript. The authors expressed general factors on the suitability of coal mining waste as a mineral component of soil-like substrates. In fact, we considered that coal mining waste was not suitable to be used in soil remediation form the results of the manuscript.

Response: The results obtained and discussed in the paper fully justify the information that the CW_1 substrate is characterized by very good sorption properties compared to the degraded anthropogenic soil, including significantly higher sorption capacity and the content of alkaline cations and higher pH, significantly higher content of organic carbon and nitrogen and assimilable forms of potassium and magnesium, and a smaller amount of assimilable phosphorus. They also confirmed the hypothesis that this substrate provides the minimum conditions for plant growth. The results show that supplementing the composition of soil-like substrates with sewage sludge and waste mineral wool significantly increases their properties and yielding potential.

5. In a word, the manuscript exists big problems. We suggest the manuscript could be receipt after the authors solve the above problem.

Response: After taking into account all the suggested comments, we corrected the article. It has also been reviewed by the English language editor at MDPI.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I appreciate you for your good research work. The manuscript look sound enough and can be accepted.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2523183

 

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Reviewer for his time and favorable review as well as for appreciating our contribution to the preparation of the article.

I hope the Editor and Reviewer will find our manuscript acceptable for publication in Sustainability.

Thank you very much for managing our manuscript.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Magdalena Myszura-Dymek
with co-authors

 

Comments and Suggestions

Dear authors, I appreciate you for your good research work. The manuscript look sound enough and can be accepted.

Response: Thank you very much for such a favorable review and recommendation for printing the article prepared by us. We are grateful for appreciating our commitment and time spent in preparing the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled "Selected properties of soil-like substrates made from mine coal waste and their effect on plant yields," authored by Żukowska et al., demonstrated significant improvement in both content and language quality following the suggested edits. The authors' responsiveness to feedback is commendable, as these enhancements not only enhanced the clarity and polish of the paper but also contributed to its overall effectiveness in conveying the research findings. I thank to the authors for their commitment to incorporating suggestions and improving both the manuscript's substance and English language presentation.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors response all the suggested comments, and modified  the manuscript carefully.