Spatial and Quantitative Analysis of Waste from Rock Raw Minerals Mining: A Case Study of Lower Silesia Region in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Figure 1 – please use different colours and more colours not only different shades of green and yellow for easier reading and referencing in the text
2. Section 2.2. – geological map and description of the main geological characteristics of the Lower Silesia area is missing – please include it in the text
3. Figure 2 – use a and b instead left and right; put a and b on the figures
4. Page 3 line 81 – Figure 4 cannot be mentioned in the text before Figures 1, 2 or 3
5. Figure 4, 6, 8 – use of different colours for the legends (for the circles)
6. Figure 13 – put a and b on the figures
7. Page 10 line 229 and 230 instead of left and right use a and b
8. Figures 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 – legend is not visible enough, and numbers on the X and Y axis also are not visible; on Figure 2 b legend is missing
9. Attachment 1 is not mentioned in the text
10. Page 11 line 251 – attachment 2 – number of the attachment is missing
11. Conclusion should be shortened and avoid sentence repeating
I hope that the authors will acknowledge these suggestions and corrections for improving of the paper.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Our reply is presented in the attached file.
On behalf if the authors
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have written a quality paper on the spatial and quantitative analysis of waste from rock raw minerals mining in the Lower Silesia region of Poland. The framing, the analysis and the subsequent generation of waste density maps should be of interest to readers as an approach for understanding where and why waste is located in a geography. The Discussion section highlights potential re-use opportunities which can be coupled with the waste density maps to find feasible waste re-use opportunities. Apart from minor improvements in the English in several parts of the manuscript, I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We would like to thank for the positive feedback on our paper. We believe that the topic and methodology are of current and global interest.
We have consulted English language tutor and introduced changes to the grammar and style of the text. All the changes, including modifications proposed by other reviewers, are marked in blue.
Kind regards
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate the opportunity to review manuscript Sustainability-383828. The article’s focus on the spatial distribution of waste resulting from mining rock raw materials in Poland is important and timely, especially given the negative externalities that such waste accumulation can have on people and places. Despite the merits of the article, I have concerns about the article in its present form. I review those concerns in my comments to below with reference to specific sections of the article, and I suggest revisions that must be made to improve the article before it can be published.
1. General writing, referencing, and mapping issues
a. The article draws extensively on passive voice and awkward/long passages at time that muddle the authors’ meaning. The long topic sentence spanning lines 57-63 is a glaring example of this problem in the manuscript.
b. I would also like to see more consistent use of the past tense to refer to the 2010-2016 study period and the data collection and analytical procedures that were conducted in the past.
c. The article contains a number of passages that require references. I locate the specific passages in my comments below.
d. Please include a new Figure 2 that presents a clearer reference map of the study area. Doing so will also permit removing the inset map of the study area in the current versions of Figures 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, and Attachment 2. This revision will also permit better visualization of the spatial patterns in those figures throughout the study area.
e. The text in the current Figures 2 and 3 do not reproduce very well. I recommend using darker and larger text in those figures.
f. Please revise the legends in the current Figures 4, 6, and 8. Specifically, use 14-point font or higher and place the “Waste Generated…” heading above the classes listed in the legends. I would also like to see in the title of those figures some statement as to the classification system used to sort the values shown in the legend and those figures.
2. Abstract
a. The abstract needs a major revision.
b. P. 1, lines 15-21 would read more clearly if written as: “From 2010 to 2016, 6,182,277 Mg of waste was deposited during mining or rock raw materials in the Lower Silesia region in Southwest Poland. Extraction activities were responsible for 46.95% of that waste, while mineral processing was responsible for 53.05% of that waste. This study analyzed the spatial and temporal distribution of waste resulting from mining rock raw minerals in Poland’s Lower Silesia region. It constructed an inventory of waste deposited during rock raw mineral mining and processing. It also developed a geographic information systems database that included information on the quantity and quality of waste generated during rock raw mineral mining and processing during the 2010-2016 study period.”
c. Please revise lines 21-22 by specifying the analytical techniques (e.g., Kernel density analysis) that were used in the study.
d. Please also include brief statements in the abstract that state the primary findings and conclusions of the study.
e. Lastly, please replace the sentence spanning lines 23-24 in the abstract with a general statement of the study’s broader scholarly and practical implications.
3. Section 1. Introduction and Section 2.1. Legal Conditions
a. P. 1, lines 35-37 discusses the concept of “circular economy.” I would like to see an explicit reference to where this concept originated.
b. I was struck by the sparse attention given to the negative externalities of waste accumulation associated with the “circular economy” and mineral mining and processing. On this point, I encourage the authors to consult studies of such negative externalities on coal mining communities in the Appalachian region of the United States (see, for example, Greenberg (2017, Rural Sociology; 2018, Society and Natural Resources) and Liévanos et al. (2018, Social Science Research), as well as the extensive literature on that topic covered in those publications.
c. Section 2.1. Legal Conditions is better suited as a sub-section of the introduction because none of that sub-section pertains to the statistical and spatial analysis of mining waste in this paper.
i. Within this section, lines 63-76, are problematic for not including references to support a number of claims in that passage. That passage also contains a number of grammatical errors and typos that need to be corrected.
4. Section 2.3. Analysis of Source Data
a. P. 3, line 102: please provide the appropriate reference for “document content analysis technique,” and follow with a discussion of how the coding procedures used to carry out that content analysis.
b. Table 1 needs revision. The rows do not appear to align very well. Also, it would be useful to include the units of analyses for the different type of data listed in that table.
5. Section 3. Results
a. Please specify the type of intervals (e.g., natural Jenks breaks, equal intervals, standard deviations, percentiles) used in the maps and graphs and give the rationale for their use with appropriate citations to the literature.
b. P. 11, line 253: Please specify the meaning of “significant.” If this refers to “statistical significance,” for example, then it should be paired with some statement as to how that statistical significance was established and under what circumstances and assumptions.
6. Section 4. Discussion
a. P. 12, line 308, to P. 13, line 343, is an incredibly long paragraph. I recommend breaking it up to improve its readability at P. 12, line 314, and again at P. 12, line 324.
b. Please relate the discussion section’s literature review to the results of the present study. For example, are there particular places in the article’s study region that are identified in the analysis that are particularly well suited for some of the waste management recommendations made in the discussion?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have submitted our reply in the attached file.
On behalf of the authors
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments:
The research presented an analysis of spatial and temporal distribution of waste resulting from mining rock raw minerals in the Lower Silesia region in Poland. An inventory of waste deposited during mining and processing of minerals was developed and a GIS database with quantity and composition of waste generated during mining of rock raw minerals in the 2010–2016 period was constructed.
In a general way, the work is interesting but miss some explanations related to GIS use.
There is some errors in English language. Some missing “the”.
I can only recommend the acceptance of this paper if the following items were clarified. Major revisions are required.
Abstract
The abstract describes the problem but misses the results obtained, especially about the density maps. Also define SW and GIS acronyms.
Introduction
“over 632 million Mg of mining”. Miss something in this sentence.
“in 2016 alone”. What do you mean with alone?
“storage facilities, it constitutes” replace “,” by “:”
“and often it” remove often.
“of inventory” replace by “of an inventory”
“Marshal Office of the Lower Silesia Voivodship within the CircE project (European Regions Toward Circular Economy), co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund, the Interreg Europe Program. “ Can you give a reference on this?
Did you use GIS? In the introduction you must refer that and give some references about the use of GIS to locate spatially the waste facilities.
In figure 1 you defined one decimal algorithm as precision, but the green classes have a lot of decimal place. Please uniform that. The "Maximum value" must have one decimal place also.
Statistical and spatial analysis of mining waste
Line 57-63 – Sentence too long. Please rephrase.
“understood as waste in the” replace by “understood as the waste in the”
Line 65 – the word facilities is repeated
Lines 72, 74, 75 – Add “the” in The owner, the records, the waste.
What/Who is competent voivodship marshal?
2.2. Description of the research area
Line 80 - The territorial… and define SW.
Line 81 - there is some errors here: must be figure 2 and the figure must be after this paragraph. Figure 4 is in results section.
Line 85 – the mining
Figure 2 - what do you mean with this? Because in yy axis the values are already in thousands.
2.3. Analysis of source data
Line 102 – the determination.
Table 1 - I see that there is some shapefiles in the data. Please provide the source, the scale and the coordinate system used.
Line 113 – Define GIS.
Line 117 – annex or attachment?
2.4. Density of waste production
Line 130 – reference to ESRI
Line 148 – the total waste
Line 150 – the area and remove word size.
Line 158 – the total
Line 162 – remove “as little as”. Do that in the next sections/paragraphs
Lina 163 – the average
Line 203 – the amount
3.2. Spatial Analysis
Line 217 – the density
Line 221 – “waste production is 3,180 Mg” change to was. Do that in all manuscript.
Line 222 – “density, A –“ replace by “density: A –“
the results obtained are not in the abstract section.
Discussion
Lines 267-275 – this information must be in introduction.
why are you talking know about bentonite? Is this relevant to this study?
you present many alternatives to solve the problem but in this section you should just to discuss the results obtained.
In discussion and conclusion section the authors do not refer to the GIS maps/density maps obtained. I think that this information is relevant to understand the work developed. Please add some analysis about that.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have submitted our reply in the attached file.
Kind regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate your attempt to address my comments from the previous review of Sustainability-383828. The article is improved, but I have concerns about the article in its revised form. I review those concerns in my comments to below with reference to earlier comments I made on the initial submission and on specific sections of the revised article.
1. General writing issues: The revised manuscript still needs extensive editing to improve its clarity and use of the English language. I note some examples in my comments below.
2. Comment 2a on initial submission: The abstract needs a major revision.
a. Author reply: “We have rewritten the Abstract according to the suggestions proposed in comments 2b-2f of the review and comments of second Reviewer.”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript: Thank you. However, the sentence spanning lines 20-22 of the revised manuscript is incomplete. It currently reads: “Then, a geographic information 20 systems (GIS) database that included information on the quantity and quality of waste generated 21 during rock raw mineral mining and processing during the 2010-2016 study period.” Also, “of” is missing between “accumulation” and “mining” in the following sentence spanning lines 25-27 of the revised manuscript: “The study revealed increasing accumulation mining waste and helped to identify spatial clusters of its deposition in the region.”
3. Comment 3b on initial submission: I was struck by the sparse attention given to the negative externalities of waste accumulation associated with the “circular economy” and mineral mining and processing. On this point, I encourage the authors to consult studies of such negative externalities on coal mining communities in the Appalachian region of the United States (see, for example, Greenberg (2017, Rural Sociology; 2018, Society and Natural Resources) and Liévanos et al. (2018, Social Science Research), as well as the extensive literature on that topic covered in those publications.
a. Author’s reply: “Such waste is stored in mining waste treatment facilities and is burdensome and often a threat to the nearby environment, related references to literature were added. Mining companies notice the need to adapt their development plans to the concept of a circular economy, seeing it as a chance to minimize costs, but also to increase their competitiveness The main challenge in the circular rock mining economy is to improve the waste utilization and prepare them for re-use, appropriate references to literature were added. Mining waste treatment facilities that we analyze are objects containing inert wastes. Secondly, we do not study the aspect of sociological impacts of mining waste treatment facilities arising from the exploitation and extraction of rock raw materials therefore we decided not to include the positions proposed by the reviewer. These publications concern issues related to waste from coal mining and deals with problems related to the socio-economic impact of mining (toxic) waste.”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript:
1. Granted, the sociological and spatial studies I recommended in my review of the original submission of this article focused on coal waste impoundments. However, I caution against dismissing the potential threats to the environmental and human health of supposed “inert wastes” that are analyzed in this study for a couple reasons. First, previous research on similar materials to those analyzed in the present study at least acknowledge or take seriously the potential threat of such materials through their fine-particulate matter dispersion in the air and water. See, for example, the following studies:
a. Dalmora, Adilson C. et al. 2016. “Chemical Characterization, Nano-Particle Mineralogy and Particle Size Distribution of Basalt Dust Wastes.” Science of the Total Environment 539:560-565.
b. Dalmora, Adilson C. et al. 2016. “Nanoparticulate Mineral Matter from Basalt Dust Wastes.” Chemosphere 144:2013-2017.
c. Vepraskas, M.J. 2005. “Predicting Contaminant Transport along Quartz Veins Above the Water Table in Mica-Schist Saprolite.” Geoderma 126:47-57.
2. Second, the dismissing sentiment in the authors’ reply is unclear given what is stated immediately above in the authors’ reply to point 3b and in the revised article on lines 39-40: “Such waste is most often stored in mining waste storage facilities and often it is also a threat to the surrounding environment [2-5].” This statement references an article by Bastas and Liyanage that was accepted in the Journal of Cleaner Production, which emphases the need to account for the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of supply chains (and the circular economy).
3. Accordingly, I maintain that at least some acknowledgement of the negative externalities to environmental and human health of the “circular economy” and mineral mining and processing must be made in introduction and closing sections of the article.
4. Comment 3c(i) on the initial submission: Section 2.1. Legal Conditions is better suited as a sub-section of the introduction because none of that sub-section pertains to the statistical and spatial analysis of mining waste in this paper. Within this section, lines 63-76, are problematic for not including references to support a number of claims in that passage. That passage also contains a number of grammatical errors and typos that need to be corrected.
a. Author’s reply: “The indicated paragraph on legal conditions was moved to the Introduction section as suggested in the review.”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript: I appreciate the addition of appropriate references. However, the following issues remain in the revised manuscript:
1. P. 2-3, lines 67-81: “obliged” appears 5 times and is particularly repetitive and used inappropriately on lines 75-80. The authors should consider the more correct term, “obligated,” and other synonyms for that more correct term to avoid repetition.
2. P. 2-3, lines 76-78, states: “The owner of the waste is obliged to carry out their quantitative and qualitative the records on an ongoing basis, in accordance with the waste catalogue.” There are words missing from this passage. I wonder if “analysis of” should be inserted between “qualitative” and “the.”
5. Comment 5a on the initial submission: Please specify the type of intervals (e.g., natural Jenks breaks, equal intervals, standard deviations, percentiles) used in the maps and graphs and give the rationale for their use with appropriate citations to the literature.
a. Author’s reply: “The explanation was given in reply to comment 1f above. For the type of intervals we have followed the general rule of limiting the number of classes to 5-8 to retain clarity of information. For the actual number of classes and their size we have applied the natural breaks classification method (or Jenks methods) where class boundaries separate different values, modified (jointly) with the normative interval classification method in cases when we intended to represent values important from the perspective of visualising the entire dataset. We consulted this approach with guidelines for construction of diagram maps, graphs, etc. Position was added to the list of references”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript: Okay, thank you, but the passage on p. 7, lines 208-210, is incomplete or missing a period at the end of it. In the revised manuscript it states: “To construct the classes we have used the natural breaks classification method (Jenks method) and the normative interval classification method [42] in cases when we intended to represent values (sites) important for the analysed case and dataset.” Please revise accordingly.
6. Comment 5b on the initial submission: P. 11, line 253: Please specify the meaning of “significant.” If this refers to “statistical significance,” for example, then it should be paired with some statement as to how that statistical significance was established and under what circumstances and assumptions.
a. Author’s reply: “For the purpose of our study we decided to focus on areas with pixel values above the mean pixel value of a given raster map representing density distribution of waste deposition, as well as areas with the highest 25% of density values.”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript: I appreciate the effort here (now lines 306-311 on p. 12), but the edits still do not address my earlier comment on p. 11, line 253, of the initial submission that is reiterated above.
7. Comment 6b on the initial submission: Please relate the discussion section’s literature review to the results of the present study. For example, are there particular places in the article’s study region that are identified in the analysis that are particularly well suited for some of the waste management recommendations made in the discussion?
a. Author’s reply: “We added the following section with explanation ‘… Qualitative analysis of waste deposited in mining waste treatment facilities provided knowledge on the character and composition of the material stored (clay, gangue with overgrowths of weathered basalt, basalt, granite saprolite, overburden). The main condition for the use of waste raw materials is knowledge about possible technologies of their application. This knowledge allows to propose recommendations and guidelines for new applications of waste deposited in these objects. In the case of analysed rock raw materials, it is possible to determine 5 general directions of the possible use of waste generated in rock mining based on a literature review. This include their use in: environmental protection, agriculture, reclamation, fertilization or food industry. Analysis of waste located in mining waste treatment facilities resulted in identification of 6 objects whose waste can be used for the above-mentioned applications. These are the: Krzeniów, Lubień, Grabina Śląska, Gniewków, Boguszyce, and Romanowo Górne locations.’”
i. Reviewer reply and new comment on revised manuscript: I appreciate these revisions, but they still need to be edited for clarify and correct use of tense and English language. Specifically, p. 13, lines 332-334 of the revised manuscript states: “This knowledge allows to propose recommendations and guidelines for new applications of waste deposited in these objects.” Other passages contain awkward statements and incorrect wording. For example, p. 13, lines 321-324, of the revised manuscript states: “Four main clusters of mining waste deposition in the region of Lower Silesia were identified with GIS spatial analysis and their change over time studied and presented graphically on waste density maps. The results should aid responsible and/or interested organs in management of such waste.” Please seek better or alternative English-language editing on the next revision of the article.
ii. More substantively speaking, please revisit the possible environmental and human health threats and externalities posed by the recommended uses of the rock raw mineral wastes in the Section 4 (Discussion) of the article. On this point, recall the studies I suggested above (Dalmora et al., 2016, Science of the Total Environment; Dalmora et al., 2016, Chemosphere; and Vepraskas, 2005, Geoderma).
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
the manuscript was improved with all my suggestions which I appreciate and hope that it contributes to a better research.
I just have some minor suggestions.
Lines 20-22: miss “was created”
Line 40 – remove “often”
Line 85: you don t need the “:” because you are only referring one example
Line 89 and 91 and 97: “the application”
Line 90: finish the sentence here in [24]. Add the name of the authors before [25]
Line 95: give here the reference [28]
Line 99: “the justification”
Lines 116-121: use ; to separate the different groups
Line 150 : Table add scales
Line 152: define also the name of the projection because some readers may not know these codes
Line 156: you already define. use just the acronym
Line 323: miss the word was before studied.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
