Alterations and Contaminations in Ceramics Deposited in Underwater Environments: An Experimental Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper on the study of ceramics alteration.
However, in some cases, the information provided is not clear and, in my opinion, it should be better explained and reformulated.
Also, I think it would be better to move some information to “support information”, in order to make the text easier to read.
I suggest to the Authors to divide the second paragraph into two: materials and techniques.
I also propose to the Authors to divide the paragraph “results and discussion” in subparagraphs depending on the types of tests performed.
Page 7 r.277 change “ooodg” in “good”.
The conclusions should be better explained, highlighting the novelty, compared to previous works, of the study conducted.
I recommend publication after reworking and corrections.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are very grateful for your suggestions and corrections. In the following file, we have written the answers (in blue color).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deserves attention and publication. However, there are some remarks:
The authors had to indicate which device obtained the color coordinates of the samples.
Why didn't the authors investigate the change in the brightness of the samples?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are very grateful for your suggestions and corrections. In the following file, we have written the answers (in blue color).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article explains in detail the study of the alteration of buried ceramic materials. Perhaps the subject of the paper is not new, or in any case not of particular scientific relevance. Anyway the article is well done. the methodologies presented in a clear and exhaustive manner and the results supported by lots of data. In my opinion the articles can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editor and authors,
The article could be published after major revision.
Regarding English language, even I am not a native speaker, you must revise in some cases.
1.Introduction
Lines 57-59: add reference
Line 121: “fired clays form La Peniche”…I supposed you mean clays from..
Lines 124-126: Please revise English language
You thoroughly and in detail, introduce all the factors affect the composition of the ceramic clay paste during post-depositional period, but you do not mention at all what you are going to present for your paper. You should define the purpose of your work and briefly give your conclusions.
- Materials and methods
The first paragraph from lines 144-155 must be rewrite it make it clearer the experiment. You must explain in a better way, what are the 9 control pieces, the firing temperature and why you prepared them…earlier than in lines 168-169.
Lines 146-147: You mention that you produced 9 different pastes from 3 types of commercial clays. You cannot consider a fired clay as different paste from the unfired raw material. The raw material is not transformed compositionally during firing, but mineralogically. Thus, you must revise it.
Lines 175-176: please revise English language
Lines 188-201: please revise English language
You use many times the phrase on the one hand ..on the other hand, in a wrong way. Please revise it.
Lines 228-238: I suppose by the spectra of EDS that the samples were gold coated before the examination with the SEM. I recommend to add it in this paragraph.
- Results and discussion
It would be useful to separate the text in subsections
In this section, you statistically elaborated all the results and you display them all and for each clay in the same graphical representation. I suggest to project the results separately for each period (3, 10 and 18 months) and for each environment (tap and seawater). It would be interesting you show how the elements K2O, Na2O, P2O5,Rb, Cs, Sr suggesting by Buxeda (1999), Buxeda et al (2002), Maritan (2020) and Schwedt et al (2004), are affected by the post-depositional conditions.
Table 3: Could you provide please in the supplementary material, the equation used for the calculation of the repeatability (RSD%)? Have you calculated repeatability separately or have you considered it equivalent with standard deviation?
Lines 267-270: Albeit you made so many measurements of the parameters, you describe only Ph values and you give the rest of them in table. I observe a decrease in all the other parameters up to 18 months, did they affect somehow the composition of the briquettes?
Lines 277 and 278: please revise English
Lines 395-399: You mention the presence of mullite, which could be correctly a new formed mineral after the firing of a kaolinitic raw material, but an illitic as well (Gliozzo, 2020). According to the ternary diagram SiO2-CaO-Al2O3, mullite is plotted in the Ca-poor field and specifically on the axis SiO2-Al2O3, how is it possible you recognize mullite in the high-calcareous clay? Could you provide please, the X-ray diffractrogram of the raw material in the supplementary material
Line 483: You mention the larnite as new formed mineral. The formation of larnite is mainly favored by the high content in calcium. In your case the raw material is not high calcareous. That’s why it seems interesting the formation of larnite. Could you provide the XRD in the supplementary material?
Lines 532-554: You give the elements as they were recognized by the EDS spectra. You cannot be certain that these elements come from these minerals you recognized in XRD analysis. You cannot determine minerals only by the elements. You need microanalyses as well. In your case, since you gold coated the samples, the microanalyses could be considered as semi-quantitative, but you could assume which minerals are present. Furthermore, you cannot give the minerals in plural..illites, hematites..etc.. Please revise the text.
Line 586 and 659: Do you mean acicular crystals? Please revise
Figure 7 d – f and figure 9b-e: is it an elemental mapping? Please revise the caption.
Lines 635-637: In XRD analysis you have not recognized the dolomite in AP sample. How you assume that the magnesium is due to the dolomite? Magnesium could be due to the phyllosilicates. The same goes to lines 638-640. Please revise.
Lines 626-629: In which factor is attributed the highest calcium in AP samples?
Kind regards!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are very grateful for your suggestions and corrections. In the following file, we have written the answers (in blue color).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear editor and authors ,
The paper could be published after minor revision. Conclusions still need revise. Basically you summarize the results in the conclusions.
Kind regards!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
conclusions have been revised.
