Controls on Associations of Clay Minerals in Phanerozoic Evaporite Formations: An Overview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

I have reviewed this paper with close inspection. The topic of the present publication is very interesting, however, I have the following comments for the authors before this article can be accepted for publishing: 

1. The abstract is too large in comparison with the whole text and I propose its reduction. Phrases such as: "contained in 74 published studies (including ours)" are not needed in this part of the manuscript. Moreover, repetitions must be avoided (e.g. formations formed). Also, in line 17, the authors write about the 15 described clay minerals..., but in the abstract, these minerals have not been reported. 
2. The introduction must be improved. In contrast with the abstract, the introduction is too short. The first paragraph does not help the reader and it is confusing. 
3. In the introduction and also in other parts of the paper, the use of large sentences and - can confuse the reader. 
4. Lines 63-68: I do not think that this part must be in the materials. It could be better to move this part in introduction. Also, the paragraph begins with: these are the authigenic... but were are the minerals referenced??
5. In Table 1, the analysis of the used abbreviations (e.g. ch, i etc.) is missing. 
6. Did the authors use a software for the data "statistical" analysis? If yes please include it in the materials section. 
7. A quick revision of written English is required here for minor typos (e.g. clay minerals associations and not clay mineral association, etc.). Check line 102, 133-134, 151, 207, 308-309, 319, 397, 442).
8. In the manuscript, the term concentration mentioned several times, but some of them it is not understandable which concentration authors mean. Please be more specific. 
9. I think is important to be mentioned in the abstract that the authors included all the clay minerals regardless of their quantity. 
10. The authors write n the manuscript: "The names of clay minerals from the articles written in Ukrainian and Russian are changed to those accepted in English-language geological literature: hydro-mica and montmorillonite are changed to illite and smectite. In articles written in English and German, muscovite in the papers published around 1960 [55,58,59,68] and mica [48] are changed to illite. We have reduced the accuracy of determination of clay minerals, which are defined as mineral species in some publications, to the group rank: clinochlorite [86] is changed to chlorite, and leucophillite (magnesium illite [80]) to illite." First of all, I propose to the authors to use the international nomenlature and my crusial question is why the authors decided to consider muscovite as illite? Based on Norrish, 1972,illite genesis can be described by the breaking of large mica flakes into smaller particles until they become clay-sized, but in the studies that authors included are the muscovite and the mica particles in this particle size? Also, this support is very old and I think the authors must describe why they characterize muscovite as illite based on modern literature. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The proposed text is interesting. The authors made analysis based on available published data in order to give an answer if there is really a difference (observed earlier) in clay mineral assemblages in marine evaporite formations that formed in different stages of brine concentration and from different chemical types of seawater (SO₄- and Ca-rich). I propose some smaller changes in the text (they will be listed below) but in addition I have a general comment concerning the style. I am not an English speaking person; nevertheless in my opinion the construction of some sentences is not good. The sentences are sometimes to long (they can be separated in two or more sentences), the authors use a lot of hyphens (dashes), semicolons, parentheses, and consequently sometimes it is difficult to follow the idea.

My other general comment concerns the presence of swelling minerals. The authors explain their presence in formations from higher brine concentration by volcanic activity. This is probably OK, but in halite stage these minerals are usually missing and in potassium stage they are present. Does this mean that there was no volcanic activity during precipitation of halite formations? Authors also give an example from Starobinsk deposit where up to 1 m thick volcanogenic material is completely altered to magnesium illite – how is this explained?

line 14 -  I propose removing of the text: (including ours)

line 45 -  I propose removing of word: then

line 50 -  Recent

line 51 -  instead of complicated – became more complex

line 63 -  I think that the text These are the and the word that can be removed

line 65 -  an evaporite basin instead of the evaporite basin

line 76 -  are instead of represents the

In Figure 1 there is no explanation for green and yellow symbols

 line 81 -  I propose to bold or underline Neogene in order to make the text easier to follow, the same in the following lines with Paleogene…

In the Table 1 mineral symbols are not explained, and there is no explanation why data for System, series for some formations are marked with green (I can presume that from the rest of the text, but…)

For formations 23-25 I propose to change Pennsylvanian to Carboniferous, Pennsylvanian, and similarly for 26-27 Missisippian to Carboniferous, Missisippian

In the text references [63], [92], [93], [94] are not mentioned

line 113 -  At the end of the sentence I propose adding of the text: , respectively

lines 142-147 Please avoid writing in the first person, i.e., avoid using personal pronouns I, we, our, my, etc. Very long sentence: That is why we compare clay minerals associations separately for different lithological types of rocks: gypsum-anhydrite or  carbonate-gypsum-anhydrite facies, rock salt facies and potassium salts facies, i.e. we consider them  by stages of brine concentration (K+, g/l) – separately for precipitation stages (concentration ranges  for different stages after [96]) of sulfate-carbonate (1.5–3.9), halite (3.9–26.1) and potassium salts (above 26.1). – please consider rephrasing, e.g. In this study clay minerals associations were considered separately for different lithological types of rocks: gypsum-anhydrite or carbonate-gypsum-anhydrite facies, rock salt facies and potassium salts facies i.e. they were considered separately by stages of K⁺ concentration in brine (in g/l). According to [96] potassium concentration ranges are 1.5–3.9 for sulfate-carbonate, 3.9–26.1 for halite and above 26.1 for potassium salts precipitation stage, respectively.

In Figure 2 – please remove minor tick marks on horizontal axes, stade should be replaced by stage

line 170 – I propose using accessory minerals instead of impurities

line 176 – please rephrase the text: (five minerals – [21]; or three minerals [19]), for me it is not clear what you want to say

line 178 – similar as in line 176. I suggest adding of word still after smectite

line 187 – may be you can use: corrensite is the only swelling mineral left instead of: of swelling minerals, only corrensite  remains

line 188 –I suggest adding of words: are present at the end of the sentence

lines 197-200 –again one long sentence, please consider rephrasing

lines 206 and 208 – may be you can use concentration stage instead of stage of concentration

line 207 – do is not necessary

line 209 – I propose using in all stages instead of of each stage

In Figure 3 I propose to use K⁺ brine concentration (g/l) instead of Brine concentration (K⁺, g/l)

In the first row of Table 3 in my opinion you can remove Composition of

line 213 – you mention 14 publications, probably I am wrong but from Table 3 I will say that there are 15 publications  

lines 224 to 228  – Long sentence: The expected direction of transformations is contradicted by the composition of the  associations of clay minerals of potassium-bearing rocks – evaporites of the highest stage of brine  concentration, which contain mostly three-four minerals, in some cases a greater number – five–eight, including two-three mixed-layer minerals and even smectite. It is… I propose: The expected direction of transformations is contradicted by the composition of the associations of clay minerals of potassium-bearing rocks – evaporites of the highest stage of brine concentration.  They usually contain three-four minerals, but in some cases a greater number (five–eight) including two-three mixed-layer minerals and even smectite is observed. This is…

lines 236, 238 & 240 – I think you can remove see

line 243 – I think you can remove which

In Figure 4 please explain the symbols a, b, c on the top of the figure

In Figure 5 I propose removing of numbers and all ticks from horizontal axes. You use symbols of minerals and this is enough.

line 276– I propose small change: dominance are both a greater number of minerals in associations (they more often contain smectite instead of: dominance are both a greater number of minerals (associations more often contain smectite

line 276– I propose to use the word additional instead of new

line 287– I propose adding of is before also

line 289– I propose to change minerals (smectite, mixed-layer minerals and kaolinite) that to minerals  like smectite, mixed-layer minerals and kaolinite that

line 291– I propose to change by with in

line 309 – I propose to change amount with number

line 319 – I propose to change transformation processes to go until the completion with completion of transformation processes

line 320 – I propose to change be represented by with contain

line 320 – I propose to change The presence of magnesite (at the end of the halite  stage) [25] with The presence of magnesite at the end of the halite  stage [25]

line 331 – I propose to change and it is not taken with without taking

line 332 – I propose to change revealed with obvious

line 339 – I propose to change towards the increase in with by increasing of

line 342 – I propose to change produced with are characterized by, and products of transformation with transformation products

line 344 – I propose to change It was unexpected for us that, with unexpectedly

line 356 – I propose to start the sentence with: It must be mentioned that

line 360 – In my opinion both is redundant

line 377 – I propose to change thus could lead to a with consequently there is no

line 401 – . At

In Figure 6 I do not see C

line 432 – I propose to change Only five formations (Paleogene and Neogene), deposited from seawater of the SO₄-rich type, with Only five formations deposited from seawater of the SO₄-rich type, all of Paleogene and Neogene age,

line 438 – I propose to remove that was and to change and with that

lines 440 and 442 – I propose to remove in the line 440 At the same time, and to add also (before observed in the 442)

line 449 – I propose to add after The synthesis the text of published data on

line 453 – I am afraid that if someone reads only conclusion it will not be clear to him what you mean by larger set of minerals, you can use some other phrase  

line 464 – I propose to change We can thus conclude with The study showed

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, 

  The authors were successfully worked on our comments and I think that they increased the quality of their paper. I am pleased to accept the publication of the paper in this new form!