<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Tiffany Yesavage</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Carleton R. Bern</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2019</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p id="pr0020"&gt;&lt;span&gt;Over the last decade, studies at the&amp;nbsp;Shale&amp;nbsp;Hills Critical Zone&amp;nbsp;Observatory&amp;nbsp;(Shale Hills) have greatly expanded knowledge of weathering in previously understudied, shale-mantled terrains, as well as Earth's Critical Zone as a whole. Among the many discoveries made was the importance of redistribution and losses of micron-sized particles during development of shale-derived soils. A geochemical fingerprint of this process for Al and Fe was illustrated quantitatively by&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Jin et al. (2010). Subsequent papers, too numerous to list in a Comment, built upon this new recognition by evaluating the spatial and temporal aspects element mobilization. Recently,&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Kim et al. (2018)&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;examined the composition of suspended, generally micron-sized particles in the Shale Hills stream, along with the&amp;nbsp;dissolved load, across seasons and ranges of discharge.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p id="pr0030"&gt;One prominent conclusion from&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Kim et al. (2018)&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;is that Zr is essentially immobile at Shale Hills. Such a broad conclusion is in direct contradiction with one from&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Bern and Yesavage (2018)&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;that Zr has been mobilized from soils at Shale Hills, and the losses relative to soil parent material are significant (median 41%). The point is important, because assuming Zr immobility is necessary to index gains and losses of other elements using the open-chemical-system transport function (&lt;i&gt;τ&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;). Both papers draw upon patterns and calculations using elemental concentration data from Shale Hills and attempt to construct&amp;nbsp;conceptual frameworks&amp;nbsp;to explain the results. Here, the argument is made that the understanding of substantial Zr mobility from soils at Shale Hills described by&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Bern and Yesavage (2018)&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;is more accurate. Additionally, issues with adaptations of the standard&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;τ&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;equations used in&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;Kim et al. (2018)&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;and some previous papers are also addressed.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1016/j.epsl.2019.02.014</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Elsevier</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Comment on “Particle fluxes in groundwater change subsurface rock chemistry over geologic time”</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>