Environmental Characteristics of the Mining Area of Ni–Cu–Fe Paleoproterozoic PGE Monchepluton Intrusion (NE Scandinavia)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper has a very interesting topic and fits with the journal's scope. Improvements must be made, especially in writing systematics should be arranged more properly. Several things still need attention, including:
The statement used in the research's purpose should not be "discussed"; otherwise, use "characterized." (line 63).
English writing needs more attention. Some trivial errors are still found (lines 48, 80, ... etc.).
In this paper, there are many abbreviations used by the authors (PGE, NKT, SNP,… etc.). Authors should describe each abbreviation when they mention it for the first time.
The focus of the study location mentioned in the destination is the Monchegorsk area. However, in many parts, it is stated that the study location is Monchepluton. Need to be clarified and complete with a map.
Sections 2 and 3 must be supported by related literature. Because the information presented may have been mentioned in other sources.
Section 3 is too long. Display only important information related to the geological characteristics of the study site.
The authors should describe more detail in the method section. The method presented should align with the data in each subsection of the results section.
The methods used in this study should be supported by related literature.
Use dots in decimal numbers (Tab 1, 3, 4).
Author Response
Response to the first reviewer
Dear Reviewer, Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read our text and for your comments. We respond to each comment below in paragraphs:
This paper has a very interesting topic and fits with the journal's scope. Improvements must be made, especially in writing systematics should be arranged more properly. Several things still need attention, including:
The statement used in the research's purpose should not be "discussed"; otherwise, use "characterized." (line 63).
These phrases were corrected according to the reviewer's suggestion as well as a thorough review of other parts of the text.
English writing needs more attention. Some trivial errors are still found (lines 48, 80, ... etc.).
The English was checked by a native speaker-specialist from London. We hope that the text will no longer raise problems.
In this paper, there are many abbreviations used by the authors (PGE, NKT, SNP, ... etc.). Authors should describe each abbreviation when they mention it for the first time.
The authors rewrote the text so that all abbreviations were developed in advance.
The focus of the study location mentioned in the destination is the Monchegorsk area. However, in many parts, it is stated that the study location is Monchepluton. Need to be clarified and complete with a map.
The authors' study area was described. And due to copyright, maps are not included, but the geological sketch should be clear enough to allow precise location of the study.
Sections 2 and 3 must be supported by related literature. Because the information presented may have been mentioned in other sources.
Relevant literature references have been added to Sections 2 AND 3.
Section 3 is too long. Display only important information related to the geological characteristics of the study site.
The section has been shortened a bit, but not too much because the intrusion rocks have a key role in discussing site restoration.
The authors should describe more detail in the method section. The method presented should align with the data in each subsection of the results section.
The method section has been revised and detailed.
The methods used in this study should be supported by related literature.
Literature has been added.
Use dots in decimal numbers (Tab 1, 3, 4).
We apologize, for this oversight and have already changed in the tables.The authors once again thank the reviewer for his careful analysis of the text. We hope that our responses and the attached manuscript will satisfy the reviewer. We are aware that not all responses may have been fully satisfactory, but we kindly ask for your understanding.
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately the mineral composition for supergene minerals was not presented in the manuscript. It is important to show the chemical composition of hypergene minerals, that crystallizing from high saturated technogenic waters (mine waters, tailing pounds, and drainage). Such technogenic waters are making worser the environmental condition of the area as whole and increasing the negative impact on the ecosystems.
Author Response
Response to the second reviewer
We are very sorry, but for obvious reasons the authors do not currently have access to the study area in question. Precipitates were sampled in the field and these will still be subjected to the relevant studies, but in this publication the authors were more concerned with demonstrating the status of land use. In the future, we will try to take this comment into account.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The title does not correspond with the content of the paper since the a specific problem with recultivation in the Arctic is not mentioned. .
2. The goal of the paper “The purpose of this study is to discuss the state of the environment in the Monchegorsk area and to identify possible avenues for reclamation of the area “ (lines 63-64) does not correspond with the results. There is no data concerning critical environmental components – climate, soils (except contamination), etc. There are no identified avenues for reclamation of the area, based on study results.
3. Introduction must be revised in terms of including review of the problems concerning recultivation of areas disturbed by mining activities in the Arctic.
4. It is not clear whether the data presented in Figure 3 are a part of the current research or not. If it is part of the current research, it must be relocated in Paragraph 5 Results, if it is not, it must be cited.
5. There are 72 references. All references must be cited in the paper.
6. Please add a description of the past industrial and mining activities for better understanding of the problems in the studied area;
7. Table 1 presents data on the chemical composition of selected rocks, it is not clear whether these rocks are dumped waste materials or natural rocks. If they are undisturbed rocks why were they included in the paper?
8. Materials and methods describe the study region. Please specify the study area. There is a description of a very large area (lines 188-190) which is not relevant to the study.
9. Lines 180-183 - the comment on table 1 says “analysis indicate significant proportion of heavy metals ….” , please provide reference values to prove that statement.
10. Please include references values in tables 2 and 3 for heavy metal content in soils and waters.
11. Please add pH data to Table 2 - it is an important factor in determining the significance of heavy metal contamination.
12. Results of the pH in the water sample are above 7, which does not correspond with the analyzes made previously that the ores are sulphide. Also, please check that in the conclusion it is written that the rocks are alkaline with sulphide inclusions (lines 360-301). For recultivation , of the mining areas one of the most important parameters is pH.
13. Please clarify whether there is a connection between the increased content of metals in plants and their content in the soil. What are the factors responsible for increased metal content in plants? It is very difficult to comment on a relationship between contamination in soils and the migration of TM in plants without knowing at least the pH and content of the nutrition elements. Please provide reference values for heavy metal contents in plants.
14. Please include the values from the standards that are cited on line 320
15. In the discussion (lines 332-334) installation of chimney filters is recommended, which does not correspond to the content of the article. If such a recommendation remains, it must correspond with previous analysis which shows that the waste gases have a pollutant content above the MPC or provide strong evidence that soil contamination is due to the deposition of pollutants from the emissions.
16. The identified problems and corresponding recommendations related to water availability (lines 335-339) were also not discussed in the article previously. If such a recommendation remains, the problem should be well defined beforehand.
17. The discussion must correspond with the results presented in point 5.
Author Response
Response to the third reviewer
Dear reviewer, thank you for reading our text and bulleting your comments. We also take the liberty to respond in points to these comments:
The title does not correspond with the content of the paper since the specific problem with recultivation in the Arctic is not mentioned.
We do not agree with this statement. The area under discussion is beyond the Arctic Circle so it is in the Arctic. Besides, the authors discuss the issue of the possibility of reclamation of post-mining areas in the Arctic using the example of Monchepluton and not the Arctic environmental ideas themselves in general. Such issues can be found in many other studies and are well documented.
2 The goal of the paper "The purpose of this study is to discuss the state of the environment in the Monchegorsk area and to identify possible avenues for reclamation of the area " (lines 63-64) does not correspond with the results. There is no data concerning critical environmental components - climate, soils (except contamination), etc. There are no identified avenues for reclamation of the area, based on study results.
Climate data are cited in the text in question The authors focus on proposing appropriate measures to improve the environment in the area. We have the right to present our own visions for the area.
3 The introduction must be revised in terms of including review of the problems concerning recultivation of areas disturbed by mining activities in the Arctic.
In our view, the introduction includes introductory information to identify the location of the site and its specifics. A discussion related to other activities carried out in the Arctic (to the extent necessary) is included in another part of the text.
4 It is not clear whether the data presented in Figure 3 are a part of the current research or not. If it is part of the current research, it must be relocated in Paragraph 5 Results, if it is not, it must be cited.
The authors have been involved in research in the area for nearly 20 years. This included geological research. Here in this part of the article, the authors' own research on geological samples is cited, but yes we have decided to move this paragraph and also add some literature items.
5 There are 72 references. All references must be cited in the paper.
Currently there are 88 references and all references are cited in the text.
- Please add a description of the past industrial and mining activities for better understanding of the problems in the studied area;
This is a very valuable comment. This description has been added as a new paragraph
- Table 1 presents data on the chemical composition of selected rocks, it is not clear whether these rocks are dumped waste materials or natural rocks. If they are undisturbed rocks why were they included in the paper?
Table 1 indicates the data of the rocks that build the massif in question. Since the soils there are usually regolith in nature, they consist of shuffled crumbs of these fecal matter. These data allow the reader to determine what the sources of contamination may be. We believe that these values are necessary to understand the mechanisms of contamination formation and the results of further research.
- materials and methods describe the study region. Please specify the study area. There is a description of a very large area (lines 188-190) which is not relevant to the study.
Yes, the study area has been specified.
- lines 180-183 - the comment on table 1 says "analysis indicate significant proportion of heavy metals ...." , please provide reference values to prove that statement.
Reference values has ben added
- please include reference values in tables 2 and 3 for heavy metal content in soils and waters.
Reference values has ben added
- please add pH data to Table 2 - it is an important factor in determining the significance of heavy metal contamination.
We do not have the opportunity to add the pH values in Table 2, these data were not taken during the field study and currently, for known reasons, the authors do not have the opportunity to repeat them.
12 Results of the pH in the water sample are above 7, which does not correspond with the analyses made previously that the ores are sulphide. Also, please check that in the conclusion it is written that the rocks are alkaline with sulphide inclusions (lines 360-301). For recultivation , of the mining areas one of the most important parameters is pH.
The authors added some information on pH, such was measured in water samples. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to detail these data. At the moment, no.
- Please clarify whether there is a connection between the increased content of metals in plants and their content in the soil. What are the factors responsible for increased metal content in plants? It is very difficult to comment on a relationship between contamination in soils and the migration of TM in plants without knowing at least the pHand content of the nutrition elements. Please provide reference values for heavy metal contents in plants.
These data are provided to some extent in this text.
- please include the values from the standards that are cited on line 320
The standards used are given in the methodology.
- in the discussion (lines 332-334) installation of chimney filters is recommended, which does not correspond to the content of the article. If such a recommendation remains, it must correspond with previous analysis which shows that the waste gases have a pollutant content above the MPC or provide strong evidence that soil contamination is due to the deposition of pollutants from the emissions.
The text says that the installation of stack filters has reduced contamination of the site, not that the authors suggest installing them now. You can see the improvement of conditions by plant succession in previously damaged areas. The authors also write about this. further in the text and is the result of field observations. The amount of acid rain has decreased and plants are re-entering the area.
16 The identified problems and corresponding recommendations related to water availability (lines 335-339) were also not discussed in the article previously. If such a recommendation remains, the problem should be well defined beforehand.
In the text in Section 6.2, water samples were taken and shown to contain some metal content from the rocks in question. Since this is the case, it seems natural to conclude that it is necessary to try to prevent these waters from contaminating the area further.
17 The discussion must correspond with the results presented in point 5.
The authors gave several concepts for the reclamation of the site, and showed examples of work currently being carried out by local residents. This paragraph, too, is meant to outline to the reader the need for changes to the site in question if only because of the demands of its residents.
The authors once again thank the reviewer for his careful analysis of the text. We hope that our responses and the attached manuscript will satisfy the reviewer. We are aware that not all responses may have been fully satisfactory, but we kindly ask for your understanding.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors rewrote the text so that all abbreviations were developed in advance??? please see also for the other abbreviations (GULAG, EDS, ICP-OAS, WTW, .....etc)
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have corrected all abbreviations. Sorry I did not think that the abbreviation EDS, GUAG should be developed.
Thank you for your valuable attention.
Reviewer 3 Report
The name of the article “The problem of recultivation of Ni-Cu-Fe ore deposits in the 2Arctic: the example of the Paleoproterozoic PGE Monchepluton 3intrusion (NE Scandinavia)” suggests that there are identified problem/s that make the restoration of the disturbed areas difficult. The analysis itself in the paper presents data, which is not related to the restoration of the area (it is important data but not analyzed in term of restoration). The main problems that are usually associated with the restoration of mining areas are pollution, erosion, availability of nutrients and organic matter/humus, development of vegetation, specific climatic conditions, terrain disturbance, technical restoration (including the presence of soils, rock, and clay materials for restoration), etc.
Aspects related to reclamation are not addressed in the present paper. In the paper are presented data on content of chemical elements in rocks (Table 1) heavy metals in soils, waters, and plants (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Proper analysis related to restoration is missing.
The lack of pH of the soils, content of nutrients and organic matter, standards for comparison in the soils does not allow to determine their condition and whether they represent a problem for the restoration of the area or not. The provided data on heavy metals (HM) content in plants also do not carry useful information if not properly compared and analyzed. It is necessary to present reference values for HM content for soils and plants as well. In case these are not available standards for heavy metal content in plants, comparison should be made with background values or by other appropriate means. The comment that some metals are overvalued is not informative unless compared to a reference or background value.
To motivate the analyzes and conclusions made in the article, it is necessary to supplement at least the following information that I requested in my first review:
1. Lines 216 - 218 - the comment on Table 1 says “analysis indicate significant proportion of heavy metals ….” , please provide reference values to prove that statement.
2. Please include reference values (norms, national or European standards) in tables 2 and 3 for heavy metals content in soils and waters.
3. Please include pH values in Table 2 - it is an important factor in determining the significance of heavy metal contamination.
4. Please clarify whether there is a connection between the increased content of metals in plants and their content in the soil. What are the factors responsible for increased metal content in plants? It is very difficult to comment on a relationship between contamination in soils and the migration of TM in plants without knowing at least the pH and content of the nutrition elements. Please provide reference values (norms, national or European standards) for heavy metals contents in plants.
5. In the discussion (lines 332-334) installation of chimney filters is recommended, which does not correspond to the content of the article. If such a recommendation remains, it must correspond with previous analysis which shows that the waste gases have a pollutant content above the MPC or provide strong evidence that soil contamination is due to the deposition of pollutants from the emissions.
6. The identified problems and corresponding recommendations related to water availability (lines 335-339) were also not discussed in the article previously. If such a recommendation remains, the problem should be well defined beforehand.
7. The discussion and conclusion must correspond with the results presented in previous part of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have read your review and applied the corrections that I will describe below.
At the same time, I would like to notify you that not all of your suggestions have been incorporated, which will be shown below and discussed as well.
The name of the article “The problem of recultivation of Ni-Cu-Fe ore deposits in the 2Arctic: the example of the Paleoproterozoic PGE Monchepluton 3intrusion (NE Scandinavia)” suggests that there are identified problem/s that make the restoration of the disturbed areas difficult. The analysis itself in the paper presents data, which is not related to the restoration of the area (it is important data but not analyzed in term of restoration). The main problems that are usually associated with the restoration of mining areas are pollution, erosion, availability of nutrients and organic matter/humus, development of vegetation, specific climatic conditions, terrain disturbance, technical restoration (including the presence of soils, rock, and clay materials for restoration), etc.
In this case, could there be such a title?
"Environmental characteristic of the mining area of Ni-Cu-Fe ore deposits in the Arctic: the example of the Paleoproterozoic PGE Monchepluton intrusion (NE Scandinavia)".
In this article we wanted to describe the state of the environment in the post-mining area, point out some features of the area and propose changes for the better. In my opinion, this signaled the previous title, but perhaps the writer of the text does not perceive well how his intentions may be perceived therefore I understand the remark and propose such a title (proposal for change for the better).
Aspects related to reclamation are not addressed in the present paper. In the paper are presented data on content of chemical elements in rocks (Table 1) heavy metals in soils, waters, and plants (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Proper analysis related to restoration is missing.
We have changed the discussion slightly by removing sentences that were controversial. We hope that, then, after the proposed changes to the title, we can consider the matter closed?
The lack of pH of the soils, content of nutrients and organic matter, standards for comparison in the soils does not allow to determine their condition and whether they represent a problem for the restoration of the area or not. The provided data on heavy metals (HM) content in plants also do not carry useful information if not properly compared and analyzed. It is necessary to present reference values for HM content for soils and plants as well. In case these are not available standards for heavy metal content in plants, comparison should be made with background values or by other appropriate means. The comment that some metals are overvalued is not informative unless compared to a reference or background value.
Dear Reviewer, we already wrote about the lack of pH in a previous review. We didn't manage to do it at the time of sampling and won't now because the geopolitical situation doesn't allow us to do it. Perhaps in the future it can be done. It is difficult to agree with this opinion. The authors cited the results of the study of the bedrock as material that can indicate from which metals in what proportions there are metals. We also gave the results of soils compared to standards. Finally, we have given the results of plants compared to soils, so the circulation of these elements can be ascertained. I don't really understand what else can be done. Sampling in other places may buc burdened by elevated values of other elements, after all. The standard, on the other hand, allows one to ascertain the veracity of the study. So since there are data from rocks, data from soils and data from plants, one can easily draw a conclusion about how the migration of elements is.
To motivate the analyzes and conclusions made in the article, it is necessary to supplement at least the following information that I requested in my first review:
- Lines 216 - 218- the comment on Table 1 says “analysis indicate significant proportion of heavy metals ….” , please provide reference values to prove that statement.
In determining the values of metals in rocks, I refer to the geochemical data of the rocks and their characteristics. The literature determining absolute values for average analyses of chondrite and supracrustal rocks is given. On this basis, the anomalies of these contents can be determined. Other comparisons do not make sense. The authors studied the site and neighboring massifs from a geochemical point of view. Analyzing rocks from the age of 3.75Ga to the age of 0.1Ma, more than 100 geochemical analyses and more than 10000 micro-area studies were performed. These data are beyond the scope of this article. They have been published in several other articles and books. Perhaps you meant something else, but if so, please explain, as a geologist dealing with Archean and Proterozoic crystalline rocks, I do not understand this statement, neither do my colleagues.
- Please include reference values(norms, national or European standards) in tables 2 and 3 for heavy metals content in soils and waters.
Data on these standards have been included in the text and a link to the literature data is provided.
- Please include pH values in Table 2 - it is an important factor in determining the significance of heavy metal contamination.
We found that it was not possible to test this value then and this value we do not have now and also cannot measure it for reasons beyond our control.
- Please clarify whether there is a connection between the increased content of metals in plants and their content in the soil. What are the factors responsible for increased metal content in plants? It is very difficult to comment on a relationship between contamination in soils and the migration of TM in plants without knowing at least the pHand content of the nutrition elements. Please provide reference values (norms, national or European standards) for heavy metals contents in plants.
Information on this subject has been added in the text. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, we do not have pH values for soils.
- In the discussion (lines332-334) installation of chimney filters is recommended, which does not correspond to the content of the article. If such a recommendation remains, it must correspond with previous analysis which shows that the waste gases have a pollutant content above the MPC or provide strong evidence that soil contamination is due to the deposition of pollutants from the emissions.
This sentence is based on the authors' observations in the field but has already been removed.
- The identified problems and corresponding recommendations related to water availability (lines 335-339) were also not discussed in the article previously. If such a recommendation remains, the problem should be well defined beforehand.
We have removed this text from the discussion
- The discussion and conclusion must correspond with the results presented in previous part of the paper.
It seems to us that after the current revisions, in this form, the discussion and conclusions correspond to our observations.
Thank you very much for your time in evaluating our text. Please forgive us that we will not include some data, because we could not obtain them. We hope that the reviewer will understand our situation and, nevertheless, will slowly allow us to publish the text in this form.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments made during the previous review of the article have not been taken into account.
Author Response
Der Editor, Your last comment is not true.
When you compare my text with the previous version you will see that the title has changed,
I adjusted to the comments about gas emissions and water problems.
In fact, at the moment my text is already only about the characteristics of what was studied there.
You write about pH values in soils, I answered several times that it is not possible to study them now and I do not know when such a possibility will occur. Since I do not have this data it is difficult to demand it from me now.
You write about reference materials for soils and plants, I have posted them as a citation to the literature, I take these information in the tables.
The discussion and conclusions were also slightly improved.
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of the comments are sufficiently answered.
