Remediation Opportunities for Arsenic-Contaminated Gold Mine Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not present in detail the role of soil microorganisms in reducing the toxic effect of arsenic.
What are the most efficient microbes in removing arsenic toxicity?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to indicate that I really appreciated this review presented in the manuscript. This study provides a detailed review about remediation techniques for arsenic contaminated mine waste and points to future research is needed to identify native plant species suited to mining locations, more phytoremediation projects assessing ecotoxicity and pore water, and more field studies. I do think research about investigating remediating legacy, current, and future mine waste sites is our humanitarian responsibility towards the environment, local community, and human health. Therefore, in general, I suggest that this paper should be published. I have several comments with the manuscript, which I hope the authors will find useful in subsequent revisions.

 

line22 and 339: "soil properties" should be added "background"

lin342: It is confusing. What do you mean the lost 50 tonnes (t)? The soil or other components of soil? My understanding the lost 50 tonnes (t) referred to the degraded soil. Please introduce it clearer.

line55-70: I suggest to correct these contents into the second paragraph.

line302: I suggest authors further introduce how to treat these plants after the harvest of plant biomass and to reduce secondary pollution.

line 475-478: delete these p values.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper under review is well-written and extensively cites relevant research, providing valuable insights into the dynamics of arsenic in the environment and effective strategies for its mitigation. The comprehensive review of the existing literature not only highlights the complexity of arsenic contamination but also underscores the importance of addressing this pressing environmental issue. Minor corrections are recommended to enhance the manuscript's clarity and flow, but overall, the paper serves as a commendable resource for researchers and policymakers working towards the mitigation of arsenic contamination, a critical concern for both environmental and public health.

a)      In between Line 45-51 add new references- i.e.,

1.       Preeti Singh, A.K. Ghosh, Santosh Kumar, S.L Jat, Seema Chahar, S.N. Pradhan, Manoj Kumar. 2022. A Molecular and Spectroscopic Approach to Reclamation Of Coal Mine Soil Using Tree Species: A Case Study Of Gevra Mining Area, Korba, India. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-00803-1.

2.       Preeti Singh, A.K. Ghosh, Santosh Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Pankaj Kumar Sinha. 2022. Influence of input litter quality and quantity on carbon storage in post-mining forest soil after 14 years of reclamation. Ecological Engineering. 178(4), 106575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106575.

3.       Preeti Singh, A. K. Ghosh, Santosh Kumar. 2022. Soil organic matter formation and sequestration in rehabilitated mine soil: the role of input litter quality and quantity. Indian Forester. 148(3),280-284.

 

b) In the concluding section, it would be beneficial to highlight which mitigation method stands as the most commonly adopted and provide reasons for its widespread usage.

c) Additionally, consider providing a concise overview of the economic aspects associated with various mitigation practices.

 

d) It would be valuable to include a brief discussion on how elevated levels of arsenic in soil can detrimentally impact crop growth and ultimately lead to reduced yields.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Reviewer Comment

Manuscript Number: applsci-2584009

Journal : Applied Sciences

Dear Editor,

This paper deals the “Remediation techniques for arsenic contaminated mine waste” .

The following is a report on the above manuscript, I recommend reconsideration of the manuscript after minor Revision.

1.      The scientific content of the manuscript is good.

2.      The title must reform.

3.      Please revise "Keywords".

4.      the novelty of the work has not been demonstrated appropriately in the introduction section.

5.      The authors gave discussion, but the discussion was not adequate and was not compared with similar discussion and results that were published by other authors. The authors used and cite references, but it is not enough for suitable scientific discussion  , in addition the authors don't provide a good literature review. The number of recent references (2018 – 2023) is limited

6.      All figure and table captions should provide with all the necessary information.

7.      The author should present the figures with high resolution

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx