Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Heavy Metals in Surface Soil of Xilinguole Coal Mining Area Based on Semivariogram
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper " Spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in surface soil of Xilingol coal mining area based on semivariogram" presents research related to the spatial distribution of individual chemical elements as well as the causes of their occurrence. Geostatistical methods were used, and a real case study, a mine in Mongolia, was also presented. The authors state that the paper can offer a certain reference function in the prevention and control of heavy metal pollution on a surface mine.
The paper presents a very interesting research from the field of geology of mineral deposits; On the other hand, the following are some facts and suggestions regarding the paper:
Suggestion 1:
Keyword changes are suggested. For keywords, the general rule is not to put the same words that exist in the title, but rather the specific words that depict the abstract and are used in it.
Suggestion 2:
At the end of the Introduction chapter, it is proposed to add a paragraph that states the structure of the paper and the details that will be discussed later in the text.
Suggestion 3:
Since it is a question of the spatial distribution of heavy metals and the mineral deposits, it is proposed in the part where the study area is described to add a geological map or geological cross section. I think it will be much more interesting for the readers.
Suggestion 4:
Subchapters 2.2-2.4 are very short and can be merged into one whole. Subchapter 2.5. does not exist, it is probably a technical error of the author.
Suggestion 5:
The results are presented in a good way, but the Discussion chapter is very short. A more detailed discussion is suggested.
Suggestion 6:
The conclusion is a retold version of the analysis of the entire research. The Conclusion would be more appropriate to state in detail the academic and scientific contribution of the paper. In the sent version of the paper, the authors are asked to clearly state which is the novelty of the paper for which the paper deserves publication.
Author Response
对审查员的答复1
Paper " Spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in surface soil of Xilingol coal mining area based on semivariogram" presents research related to the spatial distribution of individual chemical elements as well as the causes of their occurrence. Geostatistical methods were used, and a real case study, a mine in Mongolia, was also presented. The authors state that the paper can offer a certain reference function in the prevention and control of heavy metal pollution on a surface mine.
The paper presents a very interesting research from the field of geology of mineral deposits; On the other hand, the following are some facts and suggestions regarding the paper:
Suggestion 1:
Keyword changes are suggested. For keywords, the general rule is not to put the same words that exist in the title, but rather the specific words that depict the abstract and are used in it.
Reply：According to the reviewer's opinion, we revise the key words, and at the same time we have a more correct understanding of the key words. We've made changes on lines 28-30
Suggestion 2:
At the end of the Introduction chapter, it is proposed to add a paragraph that states the structure of the paper and the details that will be discussed later in the text.
Reply：The reviewer's comments are so important that an explanatory paragraph is added to help read and complete the manuscript. So, We've added lines 87-91 to explain the file structure.
Suggestion 3:
Since it is a question of the spatial distribution of heavy metals and the mineral deposits, it is proposed in the part where the study area is described to add a geological map or geological cross section. I think it will be much more interesting for the readers.
Reply：As for the geological section, in fact, we also want to make such a map to facilitate readers' understanding. We can have a clearer understanding of the scientific issue of "the impact of geological structure and chemical elements in the mining area on heavy metals on the surface". However, our project leader thinks that this will affect their interests. Therefore, it is a pity that we have not been able to answer this question. If the reviewers or readers think that this content must be added, we will continue to communicate with the director of the mining area. Please forgive us for this problem.
Suggestion 4:
Subchapters 2.2-2.4 are very short and can be merged into one whole. Subchapter 2.5. does not exist, it is probably a technical error of the author.
Reply：This is a very good suggestion. Let's merge sections 2.2 to 2.4 into one section. And, subsection 2.5 is really that we are not rigorous enough. These issues have been seriously revised.
Suggestion 5:
The results are presented in a good way, but the Discussion chapter is very short. A more detailed discussion is suggested.
Reply：As the reviewers said, the discussion chapter is an important part of the manuscript. Therefore, we have added discussion content to the research content, methods and conclusions of the manuscript.
Suggestion 6:
The conclusion is a retold version of the analysis of the entire research. The Conclusion would be more appropriate to state in detail the academic and scientific contribution of the paper.
Reply：The reviewer's suggestions are very important, especially the contents of "suggestion 2" and "suggestion 6", which play a key role in the scientificity and completeness of the manuscript. We have refined the research content again, which is helpful to the research conclusion.
Suggestion 7:
In the sent version of the paper, the authors are asked to clearly state which is the novelty of the paper for which the paper deserves publication.
Reply：Thanks to the reviewer for his important suggestions, we have made some changes in the 14 lines of the abstract, 87-91 lines of the introduction section, 404-405 lines and 411-414 lines of the conclusions section.
Suggestion 8:
Moderate English changes required
Reply：We will make strict changes and embellishments to the manuscript in English. We hope you will continue to support us and provide us with suggestions for revision.
Thanks to the reviewer for his patient, meticulous and professional comments, which will help us better modify and improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript proposes a kriging-based interpolation method to estimate the raster grids for heavy metals. In my opinion, the manuscript does not meet the standard of the peer-reviewed publication. The manuscript spends a lot of the text explaining how Kriging and semi-variogram works and is calculated. These are quite well-known techniques in spatial statistics for decades, and a variety of the Kriging systems has been recently developed, for example, spatio-temporal cokriging is able to assimilate multi-source data. However, authors still elaborate such out-of-date algorithms without any improvements or customization for the local condition. The relationship between interpolated heavy metals and other environmental parameters (e.g. Landuse, NDVI, etc) filled some research gaps but this part is too short, and no analytics nor experiment included. There are many grammar mistakes and lots of typos and formatting errors, e.g. Eq (2). Fonts vary throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer 2
Comments of reviewer 2：This manuscript proposes a kriging-based interpolation method to estimate the raster grids for heavy metals. In my opinion, the manuscript does not meet the standard of the peer-reviewed publication. The manuscript spends a lot of the text explaining how Kriging and semi-variogram works and is calculated. These are quite well-known techniques in spatial statistics for decades, and a variety of the Kriging systems has been recently developed, for example, spatio-temporal cokriging is able to assimilate multi-source data. However, authors still elaborate such out-of-date algorithms without any improvements or customization for the local condition. The relationship between interpolated heavy metals and other environmental parameters (e.g. Landuse, NDVI, etc) filled some research gaps but this part is too short, and no analytics nor experiment included. There are many grammar mistakes and lots of typos and formatting errors, e.g. Eq (2). Fonts vary throughout the manuscript.
Suggestion 1:
This manuscript proposes a kriging-based interpolation method to estimate the raster grids for heavy metals. In my opinion, the manuscript does not meet the standard of the peer-reviewed publication. The manuscript spends a lot of the text explaining how Kriging and semi-variogram works and is calculated.
Reply：Thank the reviewers for their suggestions. It is difficult for researchers who are not GIS or rs to study grassland ecological environment, such as semivariogram and spatial Kriging interpolation. In the process of searching for literature, we found that there is no complete description of the principle, progressive relationship and structural representation significance of the two in the spatial distribution and variation of things. Therefore, we searched a large number of literatures, and analyzed these problems at the same time, this manuscript describes the basic principle and application in detail. It also hopes that the relevant personnel can understand the application ideas of semivariogram and spatial Kruger interpolation, and increase the readers' interest in the study of spatiotemporal data changes. That's why we spend a lot of words explaining how Kriging and semivariogram are used.
Suggestion 2:
These are quite well-known techniques in spatial statistics for decades, and a variety of the Kriging systems has been recently developed, for example, spatio-temporal cokriging is able to assimilate multi-source data. However, authors still elaborate such out-of-date algorithms without any improvements or customization for the local condition.
Reply：Kriging and semivariogram theory are a relatively perfect scientific theory and method, which is suitable for the application in the research area. At the same time, the reviewers have provided us with very important research foreword theory and method. We are very excited to find out about spatiotemporal in recent years The research results of Spatiotemporal Cokriging (STCK) are of great help to our future research, so we will explain STCK in the discussion and deficiency part, and apply it in the future research. Thank the reviewers for their professional knowledge popularization and reminding. We changed lines 362-367.
Suggestion 3:
The relationship between interpolated heavy metals and other environmental parameters (e.g. Landuse, NDVI, etc) filled some research gaps but this part is too short, and no analytics nor experiment included.
Reply：The opinions of reviewers are very important, which fills some gaps in the research on the relationship between heavy metals in manuscripts and other environmental parameters (such as slope, NDVI, etc.). We use the sample points to extract the slope and NDVI of the study area, but it is not reflected in the manuscript. This problem does affect the authenticity and readability of the data, so we add this part of the data (Figure 5, Figure 6), which makes the data structure and conclusion of the paper better and more complete. In line 3, we did the experiment supplement and data explanation in line 147, line 327 and line 345.
Suggestion 4:
There are many grammar mistakes and lots of typos and formatting errors, e.g. Eq (2).
Reply：For the grammar and English editing of manuscripts, we will invite native English teachers to help us revise and edit manuscripts, which will increase readability and scientificity. At the same time, we modified the font of equation (2) and so on, and we used Cambria math 10 lbs for formula font
Suggestion 5:
Moderate English changes required
Reply：We will make strict changes and embellishments to the manuscript in English. We hope you will continue to support us and provide us with suggestions for revision.
Thanks to the reviewer for his patient, meticulous and professional comments, which will help us better modify and improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The aims of the paper entitled Spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in surface soil of Xilingol coal mining area based on semivariogram is to present the spatial distribution map of heavy metals of soil by the application of spatial analysis technology, make an analytic discussion of the forming reason of the distribution of heavy metals in the soil around the mining area. Overall the paper sounds good, but some aspect need improvements. It should be added the description of the goal in the abstract. There is a lack of similiar research in the region of mines. Please describe the accuracy of the calculation.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer 3
The aims of the paper entitled Spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in surface soil of Xilingol coal mining area based on semivariogram is to present the spatial distribution map of heavy metals of soil by the application of spatial analysis technology, make an analytic discussion of the forming reason of the distribution of heavy metals in the soil around the mining area. Overall, the paper sounds good, but some aspect needs improvements. It should be added the description of the goal in the abstract. There is a lack of similiar research in the region of mines. Please describe the accuracy of the calculation.
Suggestion 1：
A description of the target should be added to the summary.
Reply：
Thanks to the reviewer for his suggestions on our manuscript, we added the statistical precision (lines 14 and 18) and the research objective (line 27) to the abstract. This is more conducive to the manuscript to show the main content of the study, but also easy to read.
Suggestion 2：
Explain the accuracy of the calculation.
Reply：
We also add several experiments in the manuscript, as shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 (lines 327 and 345), which makes the manuscript data more reliable and ensures the accuracy and reliability of the calculation.
Suggestion 3：
Moderate English changes required
Reply：
We will make strict changes and embellishments to the manuscript in English. We hope you will continue to support us and provide us with suggestions for revision.
Thanks to the reviewer for his patient, meticulous and professional comments, which will help us better modify and improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors applied the methods of geostatistical spatial interpolation Kriging. The application of this interpolation implies the determination of the spatial dependence function of the data using an experimental variogram, which is presented in the paper. Using maps obtained by interpolation, they further sought the dependence of the concentration of investigated heavy metals depending on the distance from mines, roads, slopes and NDVI. However, the paper does not show maps of slope or NDVI, so that the reader does not have visual information about which spatial elements are trying to determine the correlation. I recommend the authors to supplement the manuscript with these cartographic illustrations.
In addition, I noticed a few things that I recommend correcting:
Numerical values should be separated from unit designations in several places (line 86, line 90, line 92, 118, 119 ...).
Figure 1 (line 93) consists of 3 maps. Only on one map there is a scale, on the other 2 it is omitted. I recommend inserting a scale on these maps as well.
Line 311: Pb in soil - instead of Pd in soil?
Author Response
Reply to reviewer 4
Comments of reviewer 2：The authors applied the methods of geostatistical spatial interpolation Kriging. The application of this interpolation implies the determination of the spatial dependence function of the data using an experimental variogram, which is presented in the paper. Using maps obtained by interpolation, they further sought the dependence of the concentration of investigated heavy metals depending on the distance from mines, roads, slopes and NDVI. However, the paper does not show maps of slope or NDVI, so that the reader does not have visual information about which spatial elements are trying to determine the correlation. I recommend the authors to supplement the manuscript with these cartographic illustrations.
Suggestion 1
The paper does not show maps of slope or NDVI, so that the reader does not have visual information about which spatial elements are trying to determine the correlation. I recommend the authors to supplement the manuscript with these cartographic illustrations.
Reply：
The reviewer's comments are very important and his recognition of our manuscript.
Although the slope and NDVI of the study area were extracted from the sample points, they were not reflected in the manuscript. This problem does affect the authenticity and readability of the data, so we add this part of the data (Figure 5, Figure 6), making the data structure and conclusion of the paper more perfect. In the third line, we supplement the experiment and explain the data on lines 147, 327 and 345.
Suggestion 2
In addition, I noticed a few things that I recommend correcting:Numerical values should be separated from unit designations in several places (line 86, line 90, line 92, 118, 119 ...).
Reply：
Thanks to the reviewer who patiently and meticulously found so many problems for our manuscript. We have corrected the corresponding errors and checked the whole manuscript.
Suggestion 3
Figure 1 (line 93) consists of 3 maps. Only on one map there is a scale, on the other 2 it is omitted. I recommend inserting a scale on these maps as well.
Reply：
Thanks to the reviewers for their professional advice, we are not standardized in Figure 1. We remade the map, adding scale and detailed location of the study area.
Suggestion 4
Line 311: Pb in soil - instead of Pd in soil?
Reply：
It's really Pb. Such mistakes should not occur. Thank the reviewers for their careful examination and suggestions. We have corrected it.
Thanks to the reviewer for his patient, meticulous and professional comments, which will help us better modify and improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The sent correction of work (pdf) is very difficult to read. Deleted parts are included as well as new ones are added.
Although proposed, no geological settings have been described nor has a map or cross-section been provided.
It is proposed to use the form "it is ..." instead of "we are ..." (eg. line 414)
In the Conclusion section, recommendations are given on how to act in a situation with similar problems in the field, but the scientific contribution of the paper is not clearly indicated.
Author Response
Suggestion 1:
The sent correction of work (PDF) is very difficult to read. Deleted parts are included as well as new ones are added.
Reply：Although we use Microsoft Word's revision mode (tracking mode) to revise documents according to the requirements of journals, sometimes we can't modify documents timely and clearly. I'm sorry for the bad reading experience. We will send a word version (but it needs to be in "revision" mode and "show all marks", which will show the modified content of the manuscript), so that you can have a better reading experience.
Suggestion 2:
Although proposed, no geological settings have been described nor has a map or cross-section been provided.
Reply：This reviewer's opinion is very important, so we added the topographic profile of the study area along the sampling line(line 326). This looks more perfect and helps readers understand the real situation.
Suggestion 3:
It is proposed to use the form "it is ..." instead of "we are ..." (eg. line 414)
Reply：We have revised the "we are" in the manuscript. According to your suggestion, we have revised the third person singular. This suggestion also makes us understand the requirements of scientific papers.
Suggestion 4:
In the Conclusion section, recommendations are given on how to act in a situation with similar problems in the field, but the scientific contribution of the paper is not clearly indicated.
Reply：We revised the conclusions (lines 397-410) to further summarize and refine the research conclusions of the manuscript and clarify the academic contribution of the research.
Suggestion 4:
Moderate English changes required
Reply：We will make strict changes and embellishments to the manuscript in English. We hope you will continue to support us and provide us with suggestions for revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed most of the comments and I can see some improvements. Besides further proofreading, I think it can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Suggestion 1:
The authors addressed most of the comments and I can see some improvements. Besides further proofreading, I think it can be published in its current form.
Reply：Thank the reviewer for his advice on our manuscript. We have revised the drawings and conclusions in the manuscript. In particular, the conclusion (lines 397-410) is modified to further summarize and refine the research conclusions of the manuscript, and to clarify the academic contribution of the research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a study on the spatial distribution of heavy metals in inner Mongolia. However, I don’t think this one has contributed much to the research gap filling or methodology innovation. Authors claimed to use the statistical method, but it seems authors don’t know much of the spatial statistics before using them in this application example. The statistics in section 3.1 are rather superficial without in-depth analysis and reasonable interpolation. Section 3.2, semi-variograms need to be plotted than just list the fitted parameters. Normally, the semi-variograms are discrete points from experimental estimations, while the nugget, sill, and range values are fitted parameters from fitting function. The authors ignored the process but just give numbers. No reasoning of the different fitting functions, nor validation of fitting parameters. The fitting parameters don’t make too much sense either, how come the Mn fitting affords significantly larger nugget than others.
Furthermore, more grammar checking and polishing of English writing are needed. E.g. what is combines mathematical statistics with geostatistics in abstract?
Other comments:
Fg1, is the background DEM? If so, legend and more explanation are needed.
Why not use the color-coded map for the metal distributions than the contour?
Reviewer 2 Report
Statistical and geostatistical methods were applied in the paper for the purpose of analyzing the spatial distribution of heavy metals in a real case study.
- For keywords, the general rule is not to put the same words that exist in the title, but rather the specific words that depict the abstract and are used in it.
Suggestion: appropriate keyword replacement is proposed.
- Some details of the study area are missing.
Suggestion: Mineral deposits are complex systems caused by their geological structure. It is proposed to describe the geological settings of the study area, since such data contribute a great deal in understanding the goal, set in the title of the paper.
- The justification for the results obtained has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Also, Figure 2 is very "poor" and in fact should show the very purpose of these studies.
Suggestion: It is suggested to combine the Results and Discussion chapters into one. On the other hand, the results obtained should be discussed in more detail. Too, Fig. 2 should be presented in a much better way. It is suggested that a topographic or geological map should also be placed below the map of the spatial distribution of heavy metals.
- Usually literary units are mentioned in the Introduction chapter, or in the chapter where the used methodology is described. In the results and discussion chapters, there are many references. This is not very common in the practice of writing a paper.
Suggestion: It is suggested to align the Results and Discussion chapters with the Introduction chapter.
- Figures: some of the figures in the paper are of poor quality - Figure 2; Figure 3 should be combined, not 4 diagrams shown separately.
Suggestion: it is necessary to refine the figures according to the requirements of the Entropy journal: „ ... Figures ... must be provided at a sufficiently high resolution minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher ...“
- Chapter “Conclusion” is very short and general. GIS as a tool is a well-known fact for interpreting certain data. On the other hand, the same comment applies to the application of statistical and geostatistical methods.
Suggestion: Particular emphasis should be placed on this paper in detail: explain the academic and scientific contribution of the paper (general and specific).
