Distribution Characteristics and Formation Mechanisms of Highly Mineralized Groundwater in the Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Water
Manuscript Number: 1913219
Title: Distribution characteristics and formation mechanisms of high mineralized groundwater in the Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia
Type: Research Paper
Keywords: high mineralized groundwater; hydrogeochemical methods; distribution characteristics; enrichment mechanism; Hetao plain
The manuscript Water-1913219 provides a geochemical study to identify the factors that determine the high mineralized groundwater in the Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia
The paper appears well-structured; however, some sections must be improved. Therefore, I believe
the manuscript should be published only after major revision.
Comments (R = row#):
R=61: Geogenic pollution is few o never mentioned in the introduction, which should still be taken into consideration. I recommend reading the following works and integrating this part:
Chucuya, S., Vera, A., Pino-Vargas, E., Steenken, A., Mahlknecht, J. and Montalván, I., 2022. Hydrogeochemical characterization and identification of factors influencing groundwater quality in coastal aquifers, case: La Yarada, Tacna, Peru. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), p.2815.
Fuoco I., De Rosa R., Barca D., Figoli A., Gabriele B. and Apollaro C., (2022). Arsenic polluted waters: Application of geochemical modelling as a tool to understand the release and fate of the pollutant in crystalline aquifers. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, p.113796.
Fuoco, I., et al. "Use of reaction path modelling to investigate the evolution of water chemistry in shallow to deep crystalline aquifers with a special focus on fluoride." Science of The Total Environment 830 (2022): 154566.
R:165: a geological map with the main faults is missing
R:209: why the alkalinity (HCO3-) measurement was not made at the sampling site? The HCO3- analysis should be done directly on the field because it is unstable ...
R:222: the colors of figure 3 are not clearly visible. Choose a color with higher contrasts.
R:371: box plots could be inserted to better explain the variations
R:374: To evaluate the chemical composition of the water it is not enough to use the Piper diagram because it does not take into account (as proposed by the authors) salinity, I suggest using a TIS salinity diagram, as proposed by:
Apollaro, C., Di Curzio, D., Fuoco, I., Buccianti, A., Dinelli, E., Vespasiano, G., Castrignanò, A., Rusi, S., Barca, D., Figoli, A. and Gabriele, B., 2022. A multivariate non-parametric approach for estimating probability of exceeding the local natural background level of arsenic in the aquifers of Calabria region (Southern Italy). Science of the Total Environment, 806, p.150345.
R:445: how were the activity coefficients calculated? Which equation was used? which database and which software?
R:452: insert the reference bibliography
R:485: insert the reference bibliography
R:503: insert the reference bibliography
R:533: insert the reference bibliography
R:526: before the isotopic session, a session on the calculation of all the saturation indexes of the main minerals referred to should be inserted
R:562: where do the tritium values of these waters come from?
R:573: insert the reference bibliography
Discussions and conclusions need to be rewritten taking into account previous comments
Recommended works must be added in the bibliography
Chucuya, S., Vera, A., Pino-Vargas, E., Steenken, A., Mahlknecht, J. and Montalván, I., 2022. Hydrogeochemical characterization and identification of factors influencing groundwater quality in coastal aquifers, case: La Yarada, Tacna, Peru. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), p.2815.
Fuoco I., De Rosa R., Barca D., Figoli A., Gabriele B. and Apollaro C., (2022). Arsenic polluted waters: Application of geochemical modelling as a tool to understand the release and fate of the pollutant in crystalline aquifers. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, p.113796.
Fuoco, I., et al. "Use of reaction path modelling to investigate the evolution of water chemistry in shallow to deep crystalline aquifers with a special focus on fluoride." Science of The Total Environment 830 (2022): 154566.
Apollaro, C., Di Curzio, D., Fuoco, I., Buccianti, A., Dinelli, E., Vespasiano, G., Castrignanò, A., Rusi, S., Barca, D., Figoli, A. and Gabriele, B., 2022. A multivariate non-parametric approach for estimating probability of exceeding the local natural background level of arsenic in the aquifers of Calabria region (Southern Italy). Science of the Total Environment, 806, p.150345.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript (MS) presents valuable data and their interpretation seems scientifically sound.
However, the paper has been prepared and submitted in quite a negligent state.
First, language quality in quite insufficient and it definitely needs editing by a professional service or a native speaker. Some sentences are hard to understand, being either too long or apparently incomplete. There are not only English mistakes, but there is enormous amount of various typos including incorrectly used (both missing or redundant) capital letters, hyphens (e.g., redundant word dividing), blank spaces, full stops, confusing plural and singular, inconsistently used abbreviations (e.g., in geographic orientation – SE vs south-east), ion charges, etc. Some sentences are redundant, almost identical sentences are repeated several lines from each other. I was not far from deciding on rejection of the paper due to such negligence. Please, be much more careful in revision! Also, there are many inconsistencies in using various terms for the same quantities or phenomena. Further, many references are missing to support information from literature presented in MS. In fact, almost no reference are presented in the results and discussion sections. Also, important quantities are not defined and supported by references.
Specific comments identified by line numbers:
2, and elsewhere: I think that “highly” would be more correct that “high”.
18-42: Abstract is too long, too wordy. Make it more concise.
19-20: “commercial grain bases” – Do you mean agriculture, grain production? You do not mention anything on the information in this sentence neither in the Introduction nor in the whole MS! Is the 2nd sentence complete? Is highly mineralized groundwater responsible for desertification, or desertification is (partly) responsible for the high mineralization?
46-136: The Introduction is too long, it should be reduced by one third at least.
75-76: Unclear. A reference may be missing.
84: References [12,13] precede refs [10], [11].
97, 100: Inappropriate references? What do have [16,17] common with Li batteries? What does have [21] common with groundwater isotope labelling?
101: ”180, D oxygen” >> hydrogen and oxygen stable isotopes (?)
113: Is the author name in [29] correct?
141-142: One “east” is redundant? Helan Mts. cannot be found in the map (as many other sites - see comment below).
145,152: One of the identical sentences is redundant.
154-156: A geological map showing the presented geological units would be beneficial, or at least a reference to such a map. Also, showing tectonic features (faults, e.g.) would be beneficial, if discussed.
162: “have a small distribution range” – unclear. “layered chemical Glauber’s salt” – unclear; rather give the chemical name (sodium sulfate).
165-167: The detailed map in Figure 1 is quite insufficient. It should present all sites mentioned in MS, or at least the crucial ones (those used to identify various types of water). On the other hand, some sites occurring in the map may not be mentioned in MS.
177: “large springs (springs)” - is not the bracket useless? “with a series of analysis data” – Why is this insertec here? Other wells have no analysis data?
185-192: This looks like instructions from a manual. Please reword the whole paragraph.
184-216: Information on type and manufacturer of instruments used is missing. Information on isotope analyses is missing completely. TDS calculation should be defined.
193: “total analysis” – Please define this term.
210-211: Does this info on error (rather uncertainty or std deviation) apply to As? It is inconsistent to present uncertainty for the only parameter, when for other ones they have not been presented.
213: Does the temperature and humidity apply to all analyses? How it was controlled?
215: Unclear. Do you mean that 5% of samples were analyzed in duplicate?
222: “Salinity” – is it the same quantity as TDS? A consistent terminology should be used (or at least to present both terms on the first appearance in line 195.
229, 232: Houtao (and possibly also Hubao) can easily be confused with Hetao. A detailed map defining clearly positions all three plains is definitely necessary.
240-337: The whole discussion should refer to data, but in fact, they are not presented. First data appear in Table 1 and Figure 4. Can you refer to them or can you present additional data, possibly as a supplementary material?
242: “turns to EW” – Unclear. Continues in EW direction?
340-341: A reference to Table 1 is missing.
358: Why 3.2.2 is defined as a new subchapter, with the same title as 3.2.1?
372-373, Table 1: The line for TDS showing 1 in each cell is useless, delete the line. Sub/superscripts in ion names should be used. Are Na+ and K+ presented as a sum? What do the * and ** symbols denote? Number format with missing zero before decimal point is not acceptable, add missing zero.
406: Split the sentence: …origin). Groundwater…
411-412: “symbolic chemical composition” – Do you mean “basic chemical composition”?
436: I cannot see any dotted line in the graph.
439: Rather say, e.g.: >0.9.
442, Figure 6: Place the legend outside the graph and extend resolution (x-axis starting at 0.4 and y-axis at 1000).the
451: Definition (calculation) of the genetic coefficient should be presented (with a reference).
485, 492, 495, 496: Sulin classification? Spell correctly. Give a suitable reference.
499: Figure should have a-b parts. Units are missing in the a) (left) graph.
502: Ion symbols w/o charge are inconsistent with presenting them in 4.1.2.
503, 515: A reference number to Fisher and Mullican is missing, and it is missing in the reference list.
510: Figure 8, I guess.
515-521: Too long sentence, hard to understand. Split it, reword it.
524, Figure 8: Symbol (gamma) is missing in both axes. Legend: A typo – Hubao vs Houbao (or Houtao?).
526-626: I recommend to reorganize this part, changing the order of subchapters for individual isotopes. Started with oxygen, followed by D, T (incl. Fig.12 showing also oxygen), and finally Cl-37 (incl. Fig.10 showing also oxygen and T).
528: References are needed for the presented values.
538-540: Unclear, hard to understand.
537: ”change” – “indicate”?
542: Xishanzui brine?
546: Refer to Fig.10.
555: Missing a reference for the numbers.
560, Figure 10: Change % to ‰ in both y-axes. The vertical line in Fig. b should be explained (“modern water”)
572-574: A reference is missing.
578: Move the sentence before that in line 574.
583-584: It may be useless to present the ID (and site?) of the sample.
587, Figure 11: end element >> endmember
589: >> values of hydrogen and oxygen stable isotopes…
590: delete the author’s first name.
616, 618: Inconsistent terminology (min. degree vs. TDS vs salinity).
619: deltaD – Do you mean deltaD or d-excess?
618: Define d-excess (with a reference).
628-643: Identical sentences. IMHO, it would be more logical to present first the paragraph 2 and then par. 1.
634-635: Why has not this been sufficiently discussed in previous sections?
660: Delta-value of which isotope? Or d-excess?
668: A redundant section? Delete it.
688-766: Horrible! Please, follow strictly the required style. Check typos, correct abbreviations, author names, etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Remarks from reviewer have been correctly addressed, and the paper is now more focuse on his core topic
In my opinion it is now acceptable.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has certainly been improved, however, many flaws persist, mainly due to negligence of the authors. Read again my 1st reviews where the flaws are described in general. Some of my comments from the 1st review have been ignored and not rebutted effectively. Some of them are crucial and I insist on addressing them properly. Also, the manuscript needs final language editing by a professional service or a native speaker. Below, there is a list of the flaws to correct. The list may not be complete, although I have tried to include as much as possible, it is so time-consuming. Please be more careful. Thank you.
Specific comments identified by line numbers:
22, 24, 27, 38…: high mineralized >> highly mineralized (Correct in all occurrences, except for “high mineralization”, where using “high” is correct.)
26-27: …the conditions of the structural, pale geographic, landform, and hydrogeology… >> the structural, paleogeographic, landform, and hydrogeological conditions…
28-29: Capital letters required in geographic names!
30: the largest value of >10g/L >> the largest value of the mineralization degree >10g/L… (it would be useful to define an acronym for the mineralization degree)
31: ellipse >> study area (you have not mentioned before the area shape)
31-32: The order of the two senences should be changed (first the main ions, then iodide).
33-37: Check redundant or otherwise incorrect use of commas, full stops, and spaces.
42: Hetao plain >> Hetao Plain
48: in-tolerance of saline-alkali Weakened >> intolerance of saline-alkali weakened
52: yellow river - First letters of the geographic name should be capitalized.
References> Incorrect or missing abbreviation of journal names }use some tools like JOurnal Citation Index to find correct abbreviations or their general rules)
53: Thanks to >> Due to / Owing to (The high As and mineralization are not benefits, I guess.)
60: redundant space
75: obtained >> identified / acknowledged ?
83, 89, 97, 139, 182, 183, 184, 185, 191, 220-224, 338, 359, 382, 417, 477, 522, 538, 550, 690: spaces between words missing
91: ways.[20] >> ways [20].
91: I must repeat from the previous review: What does have [21] common with groundwater isotope labelling? Alreadz the paper titIe is suspicious, but I have checked the content here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1835925/pdf/bmj00221-0028.pdf. It is a biological/medicinal study. You have simply ignored my comment. Please, be more careful!
105: et al >> et al.
152: sand and silty clay interbedded >> sand, and interbedded silty clay
152-153: Is not one “gravel” redundant? (>> diluvial sand and gravel). Or did you mean “gravelly sand and gravel”?
157: Check capital letters in the geographic names in Fig. 1, some are missing (river, shan, mountain)
161: The sampling density was collected at 3-4 >> The sampling density was 3-4 / Samples were collected in 3-4
168: Mine >> mine
175-179: This still looks like instructions from a manual, you have left some sentences in the style “do this and do that”. That is not acceptable, please complete rewording the paragraph.
184: Why Fe and Mn are not presented as cations.
186: spectroscopy >> spectrometry
187: Arsenic >> arsenic (Element names should not be capitalized!)
188: F−, and I−… >> Fluoride and iodide were determined… (A sentence should not start with abbreviation. A sample is analyzed, determining an analyte in it. Besides that, charges should be in superscript (if you use the abbreviations elsewhere).
189,192: Superscript!
206: TDS. You should present its definition, i.e., an additional equation for its calculation, to be clear, which ions have been included in the calculation. Also, besides TDS you use also the terms “mineralization degree” and “salinity”, including the Abstract. I strongly recommend to unify using the name and symbol (abbreviation, acronym) for this quantity, and, once the acronym is defined, to use it systematically instead of fully spelling out the quantity name. If you need to use several terms (e.g., because of references to literature where various terms may occur), you should define clearly that the different names apply for the same quantity. But in discussions of your results (not literature data), you should use only one term (acronym) strictly.
223: E – Is it really south bank of the Yellow River, not the north bank?
225-325: It is difficult to follow discussion here because most of geographic names mentioned are missing in the presented maps. Also, I still quite don’t understand the direction, reworded as “from NE to SE, and then turning to SE”. It may be more helpful to use the symbols A-E defined for the areas in the discussion of the TDS variability, and also a reference to Figure 4 presenting TDS values in those areas should be given (in fact, below in line 328 you may refer to Figure 4 in a wrong place, there is not much information on the correlations in Figure 4). Also, HCO4 instead HCO3 occurs several times in the discussion – correct to HCO3 in all occurrences. 364: Figure 5?
328: You may refer to Figure 4 in a wrong place, there is not much information on the correlations in Figure 4 (see the previous comment). Is it really “correlation coefficient” (R?). If it is R squared, it should be called “coefficient of determination”. In that case change it everywhere incl. Table 1 title.
337-338: with anion >> for the anion
338: showing significant correlation and high correlation >> showing a significant to high correlation
339: Make a new sentence for HCO3- (However, for HCO3-…], and possibly present values
348: the main ion concentrations and TDS… >> TDS and the main ion concentrations… zones according to the map in Figure 3
362: It should be stated what quantity is presented to quantify the correlations (see comment to line 328). Delete the row “TDS” in the table, you are not presenting TDS, are you? Are the five zones as defined in the first row of the table identical with the five zones A-E as defined in the map in Fig. 3? Then their names should be consistent, and identifier A-E should be presented. Or, just the identifiers A-E would be sufficient with a reference to Fig. 3 (similarly to my suggestion above for line 348).
364: Figure 5, not 4.
369: >> except for
382-386, Figure 5: Similar comment as above for Table 1. The identifiers A-E should be used instead numbers, with description either consistent with Fig. 3 or just referring to it. 3. Please, keep consistency! Such inconsistencies make it quite hard for a reader to quickly compare data. And ideally, same symbols (both shape and color) should be used in all figures presenting the same categories A-E. This should be a common standard in a high quality scientific journal like Water.
433, Figure 6: Similarly to the previous comment for Figure 5. 436: A sentence or chapter title should not start with a symbol. Add “The”.
442: I repeat, that definition (i.e., an equation for calculation) of the genetic coefficient should be presented, not only a reference.
472 (and elsewhere several times): I must repeat: Sulin (or Sulin’s), not Surin. Named after a Soviet geochemist Sulin, who proposed the classification in 1946. Surin is, e.g., a place in Thailand.
476-477: Surin thinks… - You are not citing the original Sulin’s work, so such formulation may not be quite appropriate. Try to reword, e.g.: According to Sulin’s classification…
481: figure >> Figure
490: scale coefficient? You use the term “genetic coefficient” elsewhere. Be consistent! Again, the caption should not start with a symbol. Add “The”. Relationship >> relationship. Again, in the graphs, the categories, if they are identical to the five zones A-E, should consistently use this identification (see similar comments above).
493-499: Again, definition (i.e., an equation for calculation) of SI should be presented, not only references.
501: >> is, respectively:… The obtained SI value… >> The obtained Si vs TDS dependences…
507, Figure 9 (and associated discussion): For what samples have been the graphs constructed? Why there is not the division into five areas (A-E). Was it for samples from a selected area only? It should be specified.
517: Fig.9 >> Figure 9
531, Figure 9: A similar comment as above for Figure 5, and other figures.
543: Figure 10, not 9.
547: Redundant blank spaces.
552: SMOW? It seems to me that in “Cl” there is “1” (one) instead of “l”. Please check and correct in all occurrences.
579: Qaidam Basin? (I am almost sure because my research focused on the nearby Badain Jaran Desert).
589: Figure 12b?
598: I cannot find Gao et al. [1] in the reference list.
623, Figure 13a: Text (legend) inside the graph, as well as axis titles, are hardly legible. A larger font is needed.
626-630: Absolutely unclear, seems like a nonsence…
633: A sentence should not start with a symbol. Add “The”. In fact, there may be a decrease observed, despite the great scatter…
632: Xishanzui?
637: deltaD?
639-640: Any reference for the dating to the Late Pleistocene?
643: 103km2 – superscripts!
650: Is it really the south bank?
652-653: g/ L – redundant blank spaces (>> g/L)
660: ; >> .
666: indication of isotope : >> isotopic indications
668: evaporation
683: I repeat the comment you have ignored: No patents have been presented, delete this line).
694-701: You should not copy-paste here the instructions/examples of a statement, but to make your own statement (possibly using a suitable part of the example)!
703-798: Some references are still not in an appropriate shape. For example, some journal abbreviations are missing or incorrect (you can use tools like the Journal Citation Index or find general rules for abbreviation).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
