Distribution of Mercury in Drained Peatlands as the Effect of Secondary Transformation of Soil Organic Matter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focused on "Distribution of total mercury in drained grassland soils as the effect of secondary transformation of organic matter." The paper is impressive; and could be interesting for other researchers and journal readers also. Some corrections/ edits are needed before the final decision.
- The abstract should be re-organized to reflect the paper contents and the research contribution
-- The introduction is too long. It should be re-organized and highlights for the novelty and the weakness in the previous studies
- Too much tables are in the manuscripts now, please just put the most important tables which could reflect the main results in the manuscripts, others could be in Appendices. And try to use more figures to reflect the results.
-The results from similar studies should be compared with the results of this research.
-The “Conclusions” wrote in generally. It should be re-organized and reflected the paper contents, significance and deficiency.
- The refs need more update
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. All your comments have been included in the revised version of the manuscript. Point by point responses are given below.
Sincerely
Authors
Comment
The abstract should be re-organized to reflect the paper contents and the research contribution
Response
The abstract has been re-organized in accordance with the comment.
Comment
The introduction is too long. It should be re-organized and highlights for the novelty and the weakness in the previous studies.
Response
The introduction has been re-organized in accordance with the comment.
Comment
Too much tables are in the manuscripts now, please just put the most important tables which could reflect the main results in the manuscripts, others could be in Appendices. And try to use more figures to reflect the results.
Response
Because it was wanted to present the obtained test results in detail, the tables were left in their original form.
Comment
The results from similar studies should be compared with the results of this research.
Response
The obtained results was compared with the results of similar studies.
Comment
The “Conclusions” wrote in generally. It should be re-organized and reflected the paper contents, significance and deficiency.
Response
The chapter “Conclusions” has been re-organized in accordance with the comment.
Comment
The refs need more update.
Response:
The references have been added and updated.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. All your comments have been included in the revised version of the manuscript. Point by point responses are given below.
Sincerely
Authors
Comment
- In some parts of the text the element Hg is written with its name and in others with the symbol. It is preferable to be consistent with one way.
Response
In the text of the revised version of the manuscript, the name of the element was used, and the symbol Hg was used in the formulas and tables.
Comment
- A recent study published in Molecules should be cited: Bussan, D. D., Douvris, C., & Cizdziel, J. V. (2022). Mercury Methylation Potentials in Sediments of an Ancient Cypress Wetland Using Species-Specific Isotope Dilution GC-ICPMS. Molecules, 27(15), 4911.
Response
This scientific paper has been cited.
Comment
- What are the parameters of the AAS insturement?
Response
The chapter Materials and Methods has been extended with the required information.
Comment
- Please add where the CRS was purchased from.
Response
The chapter Materials and Methods has been extended with the required information.
Comment
- In page 164 why the extraction time was chosen as 24h? Do you refer to a previous method?
Response
The relatively long extraction time was chosen to improve its efficiency.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript, entitled "Distribution of total mercury in drained grassland soils as the effect of secondary transformation of organic matter," is based on a novel idea, but the author needs to carefully revise the manuscript for a better understanding. So, I recommend the "major revision" of this manuscript after handling the suggestions listed below.
- Lines 2–3; Title: The title needs revision. It should be eye-catching and more comprehensive. It was suggested to add peatlands to the title instead of grasslands.
- Lines 24–25: Key words: arrange key words alphabetically and add a few more.
- Lines 11–23; Abstract: Add a brief discussion of the methodology of this research in this section. Also add concluding remarks and future recommendations related to this article for future researchers.
- Line 16–19; Abstract: Simplify and revise this sentence. "The muck layers M1 and M2, whose combined thickness was between 21 and 25 cm, were" for better understanding and clarity. Try to add smaller sentences for better understanding.
- Line 16–19; Abstract: What is the purpose of this sentence here? Please elaborate "In organic soils, it is advisable to determine the 22 total mercury content in units of mass per soil volume".
- Line 36–37; Introduction: add threshold levels of Hg contamination for plants and animals here?
- Line 45-47; Introduction: I think it is better to remove this sentence: "Research and greater social awareness of mercury toxicity contributed to reduced global Hg emissions to the atmosphere".
- Line 53; Introduction: Kindly check this unit ("44.8 g),"
- Line 43-51; Introduction: At some places, the author writes mercury, while at other places, she writes the symbol "Hg". Kindly follow a uniform style throughout the manuscript, and it is better to use symbols.
- Lines 94–97: Introduction: It’s not good to start a sentence with an abbreviation. Add the full name of the abbreviation if it comes at the start of a sentence, and write the abbreviation if it comes in any other place.
- Lines 116–117; Introduction: revise the objective of this research according to the hypothesis of current research.
- Line 138–140; Materials and methods: It is better to revise this sentence: "The study material comprised soil samples collected from 36 soil horizons that were determined according to the Polish Soil Classification System" as "The study material comprised soil samples collected from 36 soil horizons that were determined according to the Polish Soil Classification System."
- Line 229–233; Results: Simplify this sentence for better understanding.
- Line 273, 305; Results: It is better to revise this sentence "Hg concentration declined with an increasing depth in the profiles" as "Mercury concentration declined with an increasing depth in the profiles".
- Line 373–383; Conclusions: This section needs revision; try to add the results in an area-wise sequence of decreasing Hg concentrations that were studied. Also add future recommendations at the end of this section and the benefits of this research for peatland reclamation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review. All your comments have been included in the revised version of the manuscript. Point by point responses are given below.
Sincerely
Authors
Comment
- Lines 2–3; Title: The title needs revision. It should be eye-catching and more comprehensive. It was suggested to add peatlands to the title instead of grasslands.
Response
We changed the title of our manuscript.
Comment
- Lines 24–25: Key words: arrange key words alphabetically and add a few more.
Response
The Key words were added and arranged alphabetically .
Comments
- Lines 11–23; Abstract: Add a brief discussion of the methodology of this research in this section. Also add concluding remarks and future recommendations related to this article for future researchers.
- Line 16–19; Abstract: Simplify and revise this sentence. "The muck layers M1 and M2, whose combined thickness was between 21 and 25 cm, were" for better understanding and clarity. Try to add smaller sentences for better understanding.
- Line 16–19; Abstract: What is the purpose of this sentence here? Please elaborate "In organic soils, it is advisable to determine the 22 total mercury content in units of mass per soil volume".
Response:
The abstract has been revised in accordance with the comment.
Comments
- Line 36–37; Introduction: add threshold levels of Hg contamination for plants and animals here?
- Line 45-47; Introduction: I think it is better to remove this sentence: "Research and greater social awareness of mercury toxicity contributed to reduced global Hg emissions to the atmosphere".
- Line 53; Introduction: Kindly check this unit ("44.8 g),"
- Line 43-51; Introduction: At some places, the author writes mercury, while at other places, she writes the symbol "Hg". Kindly follow a uniform style throughout the manuscript, and it is better to use symbols.
- Lines 94–97: Introduction: It’s not good to start a sentence with an abbreviation. Add the full name of the abbreviation if it comes at the start of a sentence, and write the abbreviation if it comes in any other place.
- Lines 116–117; Introduction: revise the objective of this research according to the hypothesis of current research.
Response:
The chapter “Introduction” has been revised in accordance with the comment.
Comment
- Line 138–140; Materials and methods: It is better to revise this sentence: "The study material comprised soil samples collected from 36 soil horizons that were determined according to the Polish Soil Classification System" as "The study material comprised soil samples collected from 36 soil horizons that were determined according to the Polish Soil Classification System."
Response:
The chapter “Materials and methods” has been revised in accordance with the comment.
Comments
- Line 229–233; Results: Simplify this sentence for better understanding.
- Line 273, 305; Results: It is better to revise this sentence "Hg concentration declined with an increasing depth in the profiles" as "Mercury concentration declined with an increasing depth in the profiles".
Response:
The chapter “Results” has been revised in accordance with the comment.
Comment
- Line 373–383; Conclusions: This section needs revision; try to add the results in an area-wise sequence of decreasing Hg concentrations that were studied. Also add future recommendations at the end of this section and the benefits of this research for peatland reclamation.
Response:
The conclusions were revised as suggested.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review of our work, we have taken into account your comments and those of the academic editor in the final version of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your review of our work, we have taken into account your comments and those of the academic editor in the final version of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
Authors
