Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Soil Porosity and Mix Design of Volcanic Ash-Based Geopolymer on the Surface Strength of Highly Wind Erodible Soils
Next Article in Special Issue
Late Campanian Climatic-Continental Weathering Assessment and Its Influence on Source Rocks Deposition in Southern Tethys, Egypt
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Atmospheric Deposition as the Only Mineral Matter Input to Ombrotrophic Bog
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Authigenic Gypsum Precipitation in the ARAON Mounds, East Siberian Sea

Minerals 2022, 12(8), 983; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12080983
by Hyo Jin Koo 1, Jeong Kyu Jang 1,2, Dong Hun Lee 3 and Hyen Goo Cho 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Minerals 2022, 12(8), 983; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12080983
Submission received: 4 July 2022 / Revised: 20 July 2022 / Accepted: 30 July 2022 / Published: 2 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Probe into Marine Sediment Provenance)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I've read this parer with pleasure.

I've appreciated the clear presentation of the data and the description of the methods used for analyses. 

I just would like to suggest to say something about the organic content of these sediments; their different colors could maybe indicate different organic content. Your lithological description is adeguate but in such geological setting some indications on TOC could be appropriate. You also write about bioturbation signs (line 223). 

Talking about MDAC I would suggest to perform some Stable Isotope analyses (C and O) on these carbonates to verify if they are detrital or authigenic.

I appreciate the schematic organization of the conclusion of the paper.

Just one modification in lines 43-46: I prefer to use , instead of ; between the different phenomena reported in marginal Arctic Seas:

Methane-related phenomena such as bottom-simulating reflections, gas seepage, high concentrations of methane in sediments, seawater and at the sea surface, presence of gas hydrates or methane-derived authigenic carbonates (MDAC) have been reported in marginal Arctic seas.

I hope you will appreciate my suggestions.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank for constructive reports with helpful comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authigenic gypsum has been commonly discovered in marine methane-rich environments. Previous studies have suggested that gypsum formation in seepage environments is generally located near the sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ). In this manuscript, the authors investigated the mineral compositions of gravity cores from the Arctic methane hydrate zone. They have firstly observed authigenic gypsum in the Arctic Ocean methane seepage systems and proposed that gypsum precipitation can be a suitable proxy for identifying methane hydrate zone in study area. Although I think it will be a useful reference for future studies in this area and publishable on Minerals, several comments need to be addressed before publication.

 

Q1: Since pyrite is absent in studied cores, how to determine whether the sulfate sources for gypsum precipitation is associated with the oxidation of sulfide? I would like to suggest the authors to consider the contents and sulfur isotopic compositions of chromium reducible sulfur (CRS) in bulk samples.

Q2: It is suggested the accumulation of H2S in pore water can lead to widespread carbonate dissolution, providing primary Ca sources for gypsum formation. However, more detailed evidence should be presented to clarify the patterns of such carbonate corrosion (Figure 6).

Q3: The authors proposed that precipitation of gypsum is closely associated with the absence of dolomite. However, gypsum and dolomite are both present at ~240 cm in AM 01 (Figure 3). How to explain these patterns?

Author Response

We would like to thank for constructive reports with helpful comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop