Water–Rock Interactions across Volcanic Aquifers of the Lece Andesite Complex (Southern Serbia): Geochemistry and Environmental Impact

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

The article presented for review presents a comprehensive approach to assessing the origin of elements in aquifers of the Lece/LAC andesite complex. The data analysed are applicable only to this selected area. However, the approach can be successfully transferred to other areas. An additional advantage of this work is the scientific determination of the qualitative water potential of LAC reservoirs. This can translate into an increase in initiatives to preserve and protect the natural aquifers of this complex.

The manuscript is many pages long and contains a range of geological data. The data presented are comprehensive.

Substantive comments include:

1. The manuscript contains inaccuracies in the description of elements, chemical compounds, and ions in many places (almost on every page). The authors should try to standardise the text in such a way that if they write about ions (and list them at the same time), then the entry should include information about the charge of a given ion.

2 It is also somewhat inaccurate to directly say that elements are the source of water pollution. What is meant each time is that compounds containing the elements in question (and therefore elements in the form of ions) are responsible for water pollution.

3. What is the particle HCO₃?

4. Lack of attention to the English grammar makes it possible to read, among other things, that the elements are contaminated by processes happening at the interface of groundwater and andesite rocks... (abstract and beginning of theoretical introduction)

5. Can CO₂ be observed in water? Will it be an ion from the decomposition of carbonic acid?

6. What is the element called borronium?

7. The notation of most chemical reactions is unbalanced. Why do the Authors introduce minority sign style symbols in reactions?

8. All figures posted should have corrected descriptions, i.e., captions should be larger. 

9. What means SO₄?

I hope that my comments will help improve the content of the manuscript in terms of chemical notation.

 

Sincerly yours, 

Reviewer

Dear Authors, 

The manuscript submitted for review, despite containing quite a few grammatical errors, reads well. Comments of a grammatical and stylistic nature are:

1. Some sentences do not end with a period mark.

2. The text has a lot of very long and subordinate sentences. You can try to divide them into smaller and more readable sentences.

3. Some parentheses containing literature annotations contain an unnecessary comma.

4. In the text sometimes there is no reference to the given notation of a chemical reaction.

5. For various reasons, I suggest replacing certain words with other words. This note should be treated as a free suggestion for consideration:

'in developing'>'develop', 'are highlighting'>'highlight', 'depends'>'depend', 'enhancing'>'enhance', 'cropping out'>'occuring', 'occurring'>'occur in', ;number'>'several', 'constrained'>'restricted', 'potentialy'>'potentially', 'similatr'>'similar', 'took into the consideration'>'considered', 'allowing'>'allow', 'accommodated'>'located', 'stand point'>'point of view', 'are coming'>'come', 'whereas'>'while', 'cropping out'>'originating', 'principal'>'main', 'is'>'are', 'are emanating out'>'emanate from', 'number'>'several', 'is marking'>'marks', 'follwoing'>'following', 'is exposing'>'exposes', 'to measure'>'of measuring the', 'major'>'main', 'hereinafter'>'hereafter', 'were'>'was', 'affecting'>'affect', 'depending'>'dependent', 'which include'>'including', 'are occuring'>'occur', 'in'>'under', 'weak'>'weakly', 'are suggesting'>'suggest', 'are migrating'>'and migrate', ''such'>'this', 'similar'>'similarly', ' is occurring'>'occur', 'folowing'>'following', 'is'>'are', 'are increasing'>'increase', 'are indicating'>'indicate', 'is suggesting''suggests', 'correelativity'>'correlation', 'resulting in the increase of'>'results in an increase in the', 'occurence'>'occurrence', 'are'>'as', 'across'>'through', 'include'>'including', 'are supporting'>'support', 'to verify'>'verifying', 'short'>'shorter', separetely'/'separatelly'>'seperately', 'on'>'in', 'explaines'>'explains', 'signiffiicant'>'signifficant', 'are suggesting'>'suggests', 'alredy'>'already', 'conection'>'connection', 'labeled'>'labelled', 'calculate'>'calculated', 'highlighting'>'highlight', 'neither'>'either', 'moderate'>'moderately', 'eleement'>'elements', 'usuall'>'usual', 'likely'>'probably', 'are'>'is'.Lines: 24, 25, 34, 46, 62, 77, 78, 94, 96, 98, 104, 114, 121, 138, 167, 190, 197, 198, 201, 228, 238, 247, 251, 266, 276, 281, 308, 284, 374, 387, 394, 395, 412, 415, 439, 442, 455, 456, 507, 526, 531, 567, 582, 583, 584, 642, 666, 676, 684, 693, 711, 717, 744, 745, 752, 733,  757, 772, 775, 792, 810, 812, 824, 839, 859, 869, 879, 891, 919, 986, 999.

 

Sincerly yours, 

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript contains inaccuracies in the description of elements, chemical compounds, and ions in many places (almost on every page). The authors should try to standardize the text in such a way that if they write about ions (and list them at the same time), then the entry should include information about the charge of a given ion.

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed that and added charges in the case of discussion about concentrations of the main elements.

It is also somewhat inaccurate to directly say that elements are the source of water pollution. What is meant each time is that compounds containing the elements in question (and therefore elements in the form of ions) are responsible for water pollution.

Thank you for your advice. We considered it to improve the way of expression.

What is the particle HCO3?

Thank you for noticing. We corrected the error- anion HCO3^2-

Lack of attention to English grammar makes it possible to read, among other things, that the elements are contaminated by processes happening at the interface of groundwater and andesite rocks... (abstract and beginning of theoretical introduction).

Thank you for the advice. We corrected grammar as well as other errors.

Can CO2 be observed in water? Will it be an ion from the decomposition of carbonic acid?

Thank you for the question. The decomposition of minerals within rocks in contact with water is induced by CO2+H2O (actually unstable carbonic acid) according to equations 2. We introduced this fact in the text.

What is the element called borronium?

Thank you for noticing. We corrected the error – boron

The notation of most chemical reactions is unbalanced. Why do the Authors introduce minority sign-style symbols in reactions?

Thank you. It is corrected. In the equations, indexes are introduced as “subscripts”.

All figures posted should have corrected descriptions, i.e., captions should be larger. 

Thank you. We have changed the descriptions of the figures. Most of the figures are changed putting larger captions.

9. What means SO4?

Thank you for noticing. We add a charge for the SO₄ anion.

Some sentences do not end with a period mark.

Thank you for the issue raised. We introduced period marks.

The text has a lot of very long and subordinate sentences. You can try to divide them into smaller and more readable sentences.

Thank you. We shortened many of the sentences in the text.

Some parentheses containing literature annotations contain an unnecessary comma.

Thank you. We deleted all unnecessary commas.

In the text sometimes there is no reference to the given notation of a chemical reaction.

Thank you. We inserted new references in the text.

For various reasons, I suggest replacing certain words with other words. This note should be treated as a free suggestion for consideration:

'in developing'>'develop', 'are highlighting'>'highlight', 'depends'>'depend', 'enhancing'>'enhance', 'cropping out'>'occuring', 'occurring'>'occur in', ;number'>'several', 'constrained'>'restricted', 'potentialy'>'potentially', 'similatr'>'similar', 'took into the consideration'>'considered', 'allowing'>'allow', 'accommodated'>'located', 'stand point'>'point of view', 'are coming'>'come', 'whereas'>'while', 'cropping out'>'originating', 'principal'>'main', 'is'>'are', 'are emanating out'>'emanate from', 'number'>'several', 'is marking'>'marks', 'follwoing'>'following', 'is exposing'>'exposes', 'to measure'>'of measuring the', 'major'>'main', 'hereinafter'>'hereafter', 'were'>'was', 'affecting'>'affect', 'depending'>'dependent', 'which include'>'including', 'are occuring'>'occur', 'in'>'under', 'weak'>'weakly', 'are suggesting'>'suggest', 'are migrating'>'and migrate', ''such'>'this', 'similar'>'similarly', ' is occurring'>'occur', 'folowing'>'following', 'is'>'are', 'are increasing'>'increase', 'are indicating'>'indicate', 'is suggesting''suggests', 'correelativity'>'correlation', 'resulting in the increase of'>'results in an increase in the', 'occurence'>'occurrence', 'are'>'as', 'across'>'through', 'include'>'including', 'are supporting'>'support', 'to verify'>'verifying', 'short'>'shorter', separetely'/'separatelly'>'seperately', 'on'>'in', 'explaines'>'explains', 'signiffiicant'>'signifficant', 'are suggesting'>'suggests', 'alredy'>'already', 'conection'>'connection', 'labeled'>'labelled', 'calculate'>'calculated', 'highlighting'>'highlight', 'neither'>'either', 'moderate'>'moderately', 'eleement'>'elements', 'usuall'>'usual', 'likely'>'probably', 'are'>'is'.Lines: 24, 25, 34, 46, 62, 77, 78, 94, 96, 98, 104, 114, 121, 138, 167, 190, 197, 198, 201, 228, 238, 247, 251, 266, 276, 281, 308, 284, 374, 387, 394, 395, 412, 415, 439, 442, 455, 456, 507, 526, 531, 567, 582, 583, 584, 642, 666, 676, 684, 693, 711, 717, 744, 745, 752, 733,  757, 772, 775, 792, 810, 812, 824, 839, 859, 869, 879, 891, 919, 986, 999.

Thank you very much for your special effort. We replaced all suggested words in the text and performed linguistic improvements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, after reading your manuscript, I have the following comments:

Your manuscript looks more like a monograph than an article!

There is no established goal to do, and no scientific issues are presented.

The Results section is actually missing.

The discussion section contains a lot of common knowledge. There is also no comparison of the obtained results with already known ones.

The conclusion is difficult to evaluate, since the problem has not been formed.

P.S. Anions and cations must be written with the sign of their charge.

With regards

Unfortunately, I cannot professionally evaluate the level of the English language

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Your manuscript looks more like a monograph than an article!

The manuscript contains a wide range of comprehensive geological and hydrogeological data. The data are collected from numerous geological studies of Serbia. Additionally, these abundant datasets are related to the topic and helped in research.

There is no established goal to do, and no scientific issues are presented.

The fact that the water resource management on volcanic complexes is a challenge with increasing water demands (for irrigation, drinking water, etc.) or overexploitation of rivers or aquifers, this study of the waters in volcanic (andesitic-type) rocks intends to provide a better characterization of hydrogeological functioning of aquifers and to better evaluate groundwater potentials. The manuscript emphasizes the importance of understanding the natural effect on groundwater before studying the anthropogenic effect. Thus, the main goal of the manuscript is a methodology that can be used in the definition of the origin of the toxic elements and make the difference between them. (We add the sentence in the Introduction).  Especially, this issue is a good subject for research in projects related to ecological/environmental science with teams that are not familiar with hydrogeology and geology. The goal and result were to establish a new procedural stepwise analysis, which allowed the assessment of the origin of the elements in aquifers of the Lece / LAC andesite complex can be can be successfully transferred to other areas, in particular, in the areas affected by both, anthropogenic and natural influences. An additional advantage of this work is the scientific determination of the qualitative water potential of LAC reservoirs. This can translate into an increase in initiatives to preserve and protect the natural aquifers of this complex. It gave a lot of information and several methods for analyzing the data.

The Results section is missing.

Thank you for the remark. Besides the tables with values of chemical concentrations, which are the results presented in Tables 2a, 2b, and 3, we improved the section with the text (see the Result section).

The discussion section contains a lot of common knowledge. There is also no comparison of the obtained results with already known ones.

Thank you for the suggestion. We are emphasizing the comparisons of the results established in the previous version. Also, we added more comparisons from the literature.

The conclusion is difficult to evaluate since the problem has not been formed.

Thank you for the remark. We improved the conclusion for a better explanation of the results and the main goal of the research, as we explained above (please, see the Conclusion section)

Anions and cations must be written with the sign of their charge.

Thank you for noticing. We add charges.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewing the manuscript “Water - rock interactions across volcanic aquifer of the Lece andesite complex (southern Serbia): geochemistry and environmental impact''  (water-2614851) by Poznanovic Spahic et al. submitted to Water in July 2023. 

 

The manuscript deals with the effect of rocks of aquifers on the composition of groundwater. The authors investigate how the  magmatic and metamorphic rocks contribute elements that can be toxic to the groundwater. The paper talks about the importance of understanding the natural effect on groundwater before studying the anthropogenic effect. 

 

I believe that this issue is a good subject for research and the authors gave a lot of information and several methods for analyzing the data. Therefore, I believe that the article should be accepted with minor revision. 

 

 My remarks are listed below:  

 

• You missed some of the brackets in the text. See for examples lines 142-143, 920, 932-937 

• In Table 2 it is written “2 group” twice. Please add explanation why there is no 3 group 

• Rewrite the sentence in lines 807-808. I suggest to delete the with “which”

• The listed conceptual model I and II are not inline with III, IV and V (lines 988-1003) 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

You missed some of the brackets in the text. See for examples lines 142-143, 920, 932-937 

Thank you. Corrected

In Table 2 it is written “2 groups” twice. Please add an explanation as to why there are no 3-group 

Thank you for the advice. In the text related to Table 2, we explained that in the investigated area were generally observed groundwater formed in the deep (group 1) and shallow aquifers (group 2). The sample Djavv according to the composition and physical-chemical characteristics is more specific. To underline it, the data was separated in Table 2. However, the same water belongs to the group of shallow circulation (shallow aquifer). Therefore, we deleted the line in Table 2.

Rewrite the sentence in lines 807-808. I suggest deleting the “which”

Thank you. Corrected

The listed conceptual models I and II are not in line with III, IV, and V (lines 988-1003) 

Thank you. Corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree such version of manuscript

Unfortunately, I cannot professionally assess the level of the English language