Ecological State of Haplic Chernozem after Pollution by Oil at Different Levels and Remediation by Biochar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review of the manuscript addressed an important issue regarding pollutant remediation.

I have a few comments for the authors.

Chapter material and methods. The authors cite that Haplic Chernozem Loamic was chosen [30]. Please provide full characteristics of the soil and then enter the citation of the literature.

Section 2.2 Petroleum hydrocarbons characteristics. Please specify whether one or several impurities were used. This is not clearly stated in the text.

Table 1. Please change the name/caption for table 1 as it shows selected properties and not all physical and chemical properties.

The description of the text from paragraphs 87-98 should be partly included in the literature review and in the discussion of research results. It's not a method, it's a statement of facts.

The same applies to paragraphs 100 to 105.

Section 2.5 Biological indicators. Please refer to more recent literature citations, as those quoted by the authors are very out of date. Newer descriptions of research methods are available in this field of science. Please correct and update it.

Section 2.6 Statistical processing. Please describe in detail what methods/analyses/statistical tests have been presented/used for particular test results in the experiment.

The discussion section definitely needs improvement and expansion when comparing the research results presented by the aturs to others in the field. The same applies to the conclusion section, please correct and specify.

To sum up, the work requires extensive correction, improvement and supplementation of necessary information and explanations.

Author Response

Author responses to reviewer (1) comments

(sustainability-2579182)

To Reviewer #1

The review of the manuscript addressed an important issue regarding pollutant remediation.

I have a few comments for the authors.

Chapter material and methods. The authors cite that Haplic Chernozem Loamic was chosen [30]. Please provide full characteristics of the soil and then enter the citation of the literature.

Response: The characteristics of the soil were given personally by the authors, the indicators were added to the methodology, which are mentioned in section 2.1. The link that is indicated after the name of the soils is a link to the soil database - the World Reference Base (2022).

Section 2.2 Petroleum hydrocarbons characteristics. Please specify whether one or several impurities were used. This is not clearly stated in the text.

Response: The soil was contaminated with oil

Table 1. Please change the name/caption for table 1 as it shows selected properties and not all physical and chemical properties.

Response: The title of table 1 has been changed.

The description of the text from paragraphs 87-98 should be partly included in the literature review and in the discussion of research results. It's not a method, it's a statement of facts.

Response: The indicated fragment of the manuscript has been moved.

The same applies to paragraphs 100 to 105.

Response: The indicated fragment of the manuscript has been moved.

Section 2.5 Biological indicators. Please refer to more recent literature citations, as those quoted by the authors are very out of date. Newer descriptions of research methods are available in this field of science. Please correct and update it.

Response: Links to more recent references in section 2.6 (formerly section 2.5) of biological indicators have been updated.

Section 2.6 Statistical processing. Please describe in detail what methods/analyses/statistical tests have been presented/used for particular test results in the experiment.

Response: Information have been added.

The discussion section definitely needs improvement and expansion when comparing the research results presented by the aturs to others in the field. The same applies to the conclusion section, please correct and specify.

Response: The text of the discussion has been added.

To sum up, the work requires extensive correction, improvement and supplementation of necessary information and explanations.

Response: Our team of authors thanks the reviewer for valuable comments that helped to significantly improve the text of the article. Thanks a lot!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations for your interesting work. Find below some comments that may help to improve your manuscript before final publication.

• Section 2.1. Include a location map to show the position where samples were taken from

• Section 2.2. Include pictures of the samples

• Section 2.3 Please extend the description of the biochar characteristics

• Line 100. Provide reference of GOST 7657-84

• Section 2.4 Please add a table explaining clearly the differences between samples I to V

• Line 113. Which specific petroleum hydrocarbons were added?

• Section 2.6 Rather than naming the software, please explain which statistical methods were used in this research

• Section 4. Please highlight the contributions of this work and how it is compatible and coherent with previous works published in scientific literature

• Section 5. Please rewrite this section not including specific results but only the most notable contributions of your research as well as future ongoing work to be done in the future.

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Author responses to reviewer (2) comments

(sustainability-2579182)

To Reviewer #2

Dear Authors,

Congratulations for your interesting work. Find below some comments that may help to improve your manuscript before final publication.

• Section 2.1. Include a location map to show the position where samples were taken from

response: A soil selection map has been added (figure 1).

• Section 2.2. Include pictures of the samples

response: Since the model experiment was presented, the soil in the vessels looked visually the same and therefore no photos were taken.

• Section 2.3 Please extend the description of the biochar characteristics

response: Was added.

• Line 100. Provide reference of GOST 7657-84

response: References have been added.

• Section 2.4 Please add a table explaining clearly the differences between samples I to V

response: Table 2 have been added.

• Line 113. Which specific petroleum hydrocarbons were added?

response: The soil was contaminated with oil.

• Section 2.6 Rather than naming the software, please explain which statistical methods were used in this research

response: Was added.

• Section 4. Please highlight the contributions of this work and how it is compatible and coherent with previous works published in scientific literature

response: The text of the discussion has been added.

• Section 5. Please rewrite this section not including specific results but only the most notable contributions of your research as well as future ongoing work to be done in the future.

response: The conclusion was rewritten.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

response: Corrected.

Our team of authors thanks the reviewer for valuable comments that helped to significantly improve the text of the article. Thanks a lot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the corrections, I have no more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

All my suggestions were addressed properly. The paper is ready for publication

Minor editing of English language is still required