Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture and Environmental Protection: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the current submitted manuscript Barbara Symanowicz et al., is an average manuscript on the topic of ‘Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture and Environmental Protection. A Review’. The authors present an exploration into the depth of Brown coal waste and its management in agriculture and environmental protection. I have gone through the complete manuscript and the following points should be clarified.
1. Line 52-55 and Line 65-67: The sentences are repeated twice without any changes.
2. Line 67-68: The sentence seems incomplete. Try reframing the sentence again.
3. Line 124-128: No References have been provided for ‘Humins’.
4. Line 56: Under the Heading-2 ‘Uses of Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture’, only the uses of BCA should be included strictly and, not include the chemical properties of components of BCW. The suggestion is to make the chemical properties of components of BCW a different section.
5. Line 156-160: This paragraph contains no reference with a huge claim about aluminium toxicity.
6. Line 213-214: Clarify the Heading-5 and paraphrase it if possible. Remove the extra space between the words ‘waste’ and ‘as’.
7. Line 227-228: Change the referencing style to maintain the overall similarity.
8. Line 236: Try to include some significant new data has been included. The last paragraph includes the no new data.
The quality of English is fine, moderate changes are required in specific regions.
Author Response
In the current submitted manuscript Barbara Symanowicz et al., is an average manuscript on the topic of ‘Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture and Environmental Protection. A Review’. The authors present an exploration into the depth of Brown coal waste and its management in agriculture and environmental protection. I have gone through the complete manuscript and the following points should be clarified.
Line 52-55 and Line 65-67: The sentences are repeated twice without any changes.
Line 67-68: The sentence seems incomplete. Try reframing the sentence again.
Line 124-128: No References have been provided for ‘Humins’.
Line 56: Under the Heading-2 ‘Uses of Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture’, only the uses of BCA should be included strictly and, not include the chemical properties of components of BCW. The suggestion is to make the chemical properties of components of BCW a different section.
Line 156-160: This paragraph contains no reference with a huge claim about aluminium toxicity.
Line 213-214: Clarify the Heading-5 and paraphrase it if possible. Remove the extra space between the words ‘waste’ and ‘as’.
Line 227-228: Change the referencing style to maintain the overall similarity.
Line 236: Try to include some significant new data has been included. The last paragraph includes the no new data.
Thank you for your review.
After carefully reading the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer kindly inform that the manuscript has been revised taking into account the legitimate Reviewer’s comments.
Line 52-55 and Line 65-67: The sentences are repeated twice without any changes.
BS response: Line 65-67 Duplicate rows removed. (attached file)
Line 67-68: The sentence seems incomplete. Try reframing the sentence again.
BS response: It should be: The diversified chemical composition of BCW results from the type and origin of the excavation as well as the depth and thickness of the collected brown coal overburden, (attached file)
Line 124-128: No References have been provided for ‘Humins’.
BS response: References added: Huang et al. 2020 and Kalembasa and Tengler 2004.(attached file)
Line 56: Under the Heading-2 ‘Uses of Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture’, only the uses of BCA should be included strictly and, not include the chemical properties of components of BCW. The suggestion is to make the chemical properties of components of BCW a different section.
BS response: Following the reviewer's suggestion, an additional section was created:
- Chemical Properties of Brown Coal Waste Components. (attached file)
Line 156-160: This paragraph contains no reference with a huge claim about aluminium toxicity.
BS response: The reference has been supplemented: Dziadowiec 1993 (attached file)
Line 213-214: Clarify the Heading-5 and paraphrase it if possible. Remove the extra space between the words ‘waste’ and ‘as’.
BS response: It should be: Use of Brown Coal Waste in Cultivation of Vegetables. (attached file)
Line 227-228: Change the referencing style to maintain the overall similarity.
BS response: It should be: Brown coal waste (BCW) of various grain sizes is used directly as a substrate for tomato [69, 70], lettuce and cucumber [71, 72] and ornamental plants [71] requiring continuous irrigation. (attached file)
Line 236: Try to include some significant new data has been included. The last paragraph includes the no new data.
BS response: Organomineral Fertilizers Based on Brown Coal Waste
There are many organomineral fertilizers on the market based on brown coal waste. Here are some examples: Humi Brown Gold, Carbohumic sad, Carbomat ECO, Greenmix. (attached file)
Line 259-261 It should be: As a result of these reactions, humic-mineral, nitrohumine-mineral and micronutrient fertilizers are obtained (e.g. Nitro Sulfer NPK, Tohumus, Tohumus Ekstra).
Best regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article deals with the use of lignite waste as an element improving the efficiency of agriculture and preventing the emission of heavy metals. In general, as can be seen from articles and literature references, there is not much literature available on this subject. Taking this into account, it is beneficial to collect all this information in the form of a review article, which the authors try to do. In my opinion, the manuscript needs to be improved. Due to relatively few literature items, individual items should be discussed in more depth, with more details. More detalied remarks are presented below:
Line 132: any abbreviations should be explained
Line 144: the sentence needs to be reworded - there is no verb in it. Generally the whole manuscript needs language editing
Line 167: in general, the topics addressed by the authors are not the subject of many publications. Therefore, in order to carry out a comprehensive review, it would be beneficial to provide more information from the cited publications. For example: "According Simmler et al. [39] brown coal waste reduces the solubility and plant uptake of cadmium in pasturelands." Please cite more information on this topic from this publication. This also applies to other citations.
Line 172: Has or HAs
Author Response
Dear Authors,
The article deals with the use of lignite waste as an element improving the efficiency of agriculture and preventing the emission of heavy metals. In general, as can be seen from articles and literature references, there is not much literature available on this subject. Taking this into account, it is beneficial to collect all this information in the form of a review article, which the authors try to do. In my opinion, the manuscript needs to be improved. Due to relatively few literature items, individual items should be discussed in more depth, with more details. More detalied remarks are presented below:
Line 132: any abbreviations should be explained
Line 144: the sentence needs to be reworded - there is no verb in it. Generally the whole manuscript needs language editing
Line 167: in general, the topics addressed by the authors are not the subject of many publications. Therefore, in order to carry out a comprehensive review, it would be beneficial to provide more information from the cited publications. For example: "According Simmler et al. [39] brown coal waste reduces the solubility and plant uptake of cadmium in pasturelands." Please cite more information on this topic from this publication. This also applies to other citations.
Line 172: Has or HAs
Thank you for your review.
After carefully reading the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer kindly inform that the manuscript has been revised taking into account the legitimate Reviewer’s comments.
- Line 132: any abbreviations should be explained
BS response: It should be: The results of a 3-year field study with corn, potatoes and
barley showed an increase in the yield of the test plants after the application of biochar
(12.8 t ha – 1) and brown coal waste (24.2 t ha – 1) by at least 20%, with or without the
addition of NPK (90 – 26 – 91 kg ha – 1) [43]. (attached file)
- Line 144: the sentence needs to be reworded - there is no verb in it. Generally the whole manuscript needs language editing
BS response: It should be: The brown coal waste stabilizes of Cr, Pb and Zn in the soil [16], and extractability of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn), and enzyme activity in soil [46]. (attached file)
- Line 167: in general, the topics addressed by the authors are not the subject of many publications. Therefore, in order to carry out a comprehensive review, it would be beneficial to provide more information from the cited publications. For example: "According Simmler et al. [39] brown coal waste reduces the solubility and plant uptake of cadmium in pasturelands." Please cite more information on this topic from this publication. This also applies to other citations.
BS response: According Simmler et al. [57] brown coal waste reduces the solubility and plant uptake of cadmium in pasturelands. In these studies, the addition of brown coal in the amount of 5% by weight to soils was the most effective in reducing soluble cadmium in low pH soils. Research conducted by Simmler et al. [57] also showed that the addition of brown coal in the amount of 1% by weight to the soil in the greenhouse experiment reduced the uptake of Cd by Lolium perenne L. by 30%. (attached file)
More information about the cited manuscripts is provided in the Introduction section.
- Line 172: Has or Has
BS response: It should be: HAs (attached file)
Best regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is the review manuscript entitled “Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture and Environmental Protection. A Review”. Although the topic is so exciting but unfortunately, the paper was written with general information. I expected to consider much-related research work in the field in a review paper. Some of the major issues were addressed as follows:
The literature review was written superficially. I firmly suggested discussing and citing the latest research works in the introduction.
The main reason for conducting this review is unclear and must be clarified at the end of the introduction.
There is no suggestion for further research work.
Author Response
This is the review manuscript entitled “Brown Coal Waste in Agriculture and Environmental Protection. A Review”. Although the topic is so exciting but unfortunately, the paper was written with general information. I expected to consider much-related research work in the field in a review paper. Some of the major issues were addressed as follows:
The literature review was written superficially. I firmly suggested discussing and citing the latest research works in the introduction.
The main reason for conducting this review is unclear and must be clarified at the end of the introduction.
There is no suggestion for further research work
Thank you for your review.
After carefully reading the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer kindly inform that the manuscript has been revised taking into account the legitimate Reviewer’s comments.
- I firmly suggested discussing and citing the latest research works in the introduction.
BS response: The authors extended the literature review in the Introduction section as
rightly suggested by the Reviewer. (attached file)
- The main reason for conducting this review is unclear and must be clarified at the end of the introduction.
BS response: At the end of the Introduction section, the authors included an explanation and reason why the manuscript was prepared as a review article. (attached file)
- There is no suggestion for further research work.
BS response: Suggestions for further research are included at the end of the manuscript. (attached file)
Best Regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is substancially improved from last time, But the vision of the review is still a bit unclear.
English language is improved, minor spelling check needed.
Author Response
This manuscript is substancially improved from last time, But the vision of the review is still a bit unclear.
Thank you for your review.
After carefully reading the comment of the Reviewer, I kindly inform that the manuscript has been revised taking into account the legitimate Reviewer comment.
Best regards
Barbara Symanowicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript was improved according to remarks.
Author Response
Manuscript was improved according to remarks.
Thank you very much for your positive opinion.
Best regards
Barbara Symanowicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please consider the decision letter.
Author Response
Please consider the decision letter.
Thank you.
Best regards
Barbara Symanowicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Please consider the decision letter.
