Biogeochemical In Situ Barriers in the Aquifers near Uranium Sludge Storages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article, with its very interesting topic, can have important applications in environmental protection and prevention of underground water pollution. In my opinion, the article has different sections that, together with microbiological topics, have been able to describe the existing conditions well. This article is well structured and will definitely be of interest to the readers. Two comments to improve the text are presented below. In my opinion, this article can be accepted in its current format.
Table 1: It is better to mention the units in parentheses. Check the uranium unit. Add the charge of all the ions and make sure they are written correctly.
Remove reference 21 from the conclusion section and mention it in the relevant section in the discussion and conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Water,
We have made major revisions and fervently hope that these corrections have significantly improved the manuscript. Below you can find the description of changes made according to reviewers’ comments and answers to notes made by the Editorial Board.
Table 1: It is better to mention the units in parentheses. Check the uranium unit. Add the charge of all the ions and make sure they are written correctly.
Response 1: The authors have corrected the mistakes.
Remove reference 21 from the conclusion section and mention it in the relevant section in the discussion and conclusion.
Response 2: The reference have been removed from the conclution section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents and discusses the original results concerning the realization of in situ biological barriers to retain uranium contamination of aquifers.
The manuscript is well-written from a scientific point of view, but, it should be checked by a native speaking English.
The main weakness of the manuscript consists of the absence of a well-documented subsection devoted to Quality Assurance. Also, I have remarked on the total absence of uncertainties for each experimentally measured or calculated parameter as well as for the error bars in the graph reproduced in Figs. 2, 5, and 6.
More local remarks can be found on the attached annotated pdf. file
Under these circumstances, I recommend reconsidering it after moderate revisions, but, regardless of these remarks, when properly revised, the manuscript worth publishing.
Also, it would be better if native-speaking English would finally check the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Water,
We have made major revisions and fervently hope that these corrections have significantly improved the manuscript. Below you can find the description of changes made according to reviewers’ comments and answers to notes made by the Editorial Board.
The main weakness of the manuscript consists of the absence of a well-documented subsection devoted to Quality Assurance. Also, I have remarked on the total absence of uncertainties for each experimentally measured or calculated parameter as well as for the error bars in the graph reproduced in Figs. 2, 5, and 6.
Response 1: Fig 6, 9, 10 are corrected. Fig 2 and 5 - calculation of errors for indices is not practiced.
More local remarks can be found on the attached annotated pdf. file
Response 2:. Method errors are inserted in the Methods section. The links to the websites of equipment manufacturers are inserted. Uncertainties are inserted in Graphs and tables. Uncertainties are not inserted in Table 1, as this would make the table unreadable and too unwieldy; information on uncertainties is given in section 2.4. The decoding of the names of plants are given in section 3.1, the also contain the cities, in which these plants are located. Also, the information about the plants is published in our previous works.
Also, it would be better if native-speaking English would finally check the manuscript.
Response 3: Russian-English translator has significantly corrected the style and spelling.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work focuses on the sample collection from the low-level uranium repository sites and their treatment using a bioremediation approach. The paper specifically emphasizes the denitrification of the collected samples. The topic of the paper may suit well to the journal. However, the novelty of this research needs to be improved at the end of the Introduction section. The language of the text also requires significant improvement before publication.
The English language of the paper requires significant improvement.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Water,
We have made major revisions and fervently hope that these corrections have significantly improved the manuscript. Below you can find the description of changes made according to reviewers’ comments and answers to notes made by the Editorial Board.
This work focuses on the sample collection from the low-level uranium repository sites and their treatment using a bioremediation approach. The paper specifically emphasizes the denitrification of the collected samples. The topic of the paper may suit well to the journal. However, the novelty of this research needs to be improved at the end of the Introduction section. The language of the text also requires significant improvement before publication.
Response 1: The Introduction section has been corrected.
Response 2: Russian-English translator has significantly corrected the style and spelling of the language.
Reviewer 4 Report
The submitted manuscript reports results of an experimental work on the application of the metabolic potential of aboriginal microflora for in situ bioremediation of groundwater with multicomponent pollution near low-level radioactive waste sludge storages. The emphasis is made on the study of geochemical, geological and microbiological parameters of territories that affect the possibility of using the biological treatment method.
Further minor suggestions/comments:
1. Section 3.1 contains the formulas of minerals bentorite (Ca6(AlCr)2(SO4)3(OH)12•26H2O) and ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12 •26H2O). X-ray diffraction patterns of these minerals are very similar, so there is doubt about their joint location. It seems more correct, depending on the presence of aluminum and chromium in the initial solutions, to choose one of these phases and not use the second one.
2. Ibidem rapidcreekite Ca2(CO3)SO4 • 4H2O) - if carbonate is in brackets, then sulfate should be written accordingly: Ca2(CO3)(SO4) • 4H2O). Incorrect structural spelling of the voltaite formula (K2(Fe5Fe4)(SO4)12•18H2O) – the correct is K2Fe+25Fe+34(SO4)12•18H2O.
3. Ibidem «In the process of the acidic tails neutralization, the solution quickly becomes supersaturated with respect to calcite, gypsum, … and bassanite (CaSO4 • 0.5H2O)». The presence of bassanite in sediments does not mean that it is formed during neutralization. This is unlikely in the conditions of excess water, more likely that this is a product of subsequent dehydration of the gypsum.
4. In the section 3.2. authors should add more specific discussion.
5. Table 2. Days should be moved to the table name.
6. Fig. 8 needs to be rebuilt. Also, the subscription should be larger.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers of Water,
We have made major revisions and fervently hope that these corrections have significantly improved the manuscript. Below you can find the description of changes made according to reviewers’ comments and answers to notes made by the Editorial Board.
Further minor suggestions/comments:
- Section 3.1 contains the formulas of minerals bentorite (Ca6(AlCr)2(SO4)3(OH)12•26H2O) and ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12 •26H2O). X-ray diffraction patterns of these minerals are very similar, so there is doubt about their joint location. It seems more correct, depending on the presence of aluminum and chromium in the initial solutions, to choose one of these phases and not use the second one.
Response 1: The authors have corrected the mistakes.
- Ibidem rapidcreekite Ca2(CO3)SO4 • 4H2O) - if carbonate is in brackets, then sulfate should be written accordingly: Ca2(CO3)(SO4) • 4H2O). Incorrect structural spelling of the voltaite formula (K2(Fe5Fe4)(SO4)12•18H2O) – the correct is K2Fe+25Fe+34(SO4)12•18H2O.
Response 2: The authors have corrected the mistakes.
- Ibidem «In the process of the acidic tails neutralization, the solution quickly becomes supersaturated with respect to calcite, gypsum, … and bassanite (CaSO4 • 0.5H2O)». The presence of bassanite in sediments does not mean that it is formed during neutralization. This is unlikely in the conditions of excess water, more likely that this is a product of subsequent dehydration of the gypsum.
Response 3: The authors have corrected the mistakes.
- In the section 3.2. authors should add more specific discussion.
Response 4: The discussion has been improved.
- Table 2. Days should be moved to the table name.
Response 5: Corrected.
- 8 needs to be rebuilt. Also, the subscription should be larger.
Response 6: The Fig. 8 was rebuilt.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the authors have done a lot of jobs correcting the previous weaknesses, there are still some remarks that authors should correct.
Then the manuscript could be accepted.
See the attached annotated manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for your work and attention to our article. We took into account all the comments and made changes to most of the comments.
However, according to the remark to Figure 5, it should be reported that if the diagram is divided into two, the main its essence will be lost.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
