overall well structured. detailed revisions in the supplement

The article presents an interesting and technically relevant approach to kinetically resolved analysis, and its main conceptual framework is clearly articulated. The authors outline the experimental setup and provide a logical progression from theoretical background to practical implementation. The overall structure of the paper supports readability, and the figures and equations help contextualize the proposed method.

Regarding the methodology, it is described in a generally coherent manner; the experimental conditions, measurement procedures, and analytical framework are outlined. However, while the core experimental steps are presented, certain aspects could benefit from greater detail to ensure full reproducibility. For example, although the authors explain the type of kinetic model applied and reference the governing equations, the description of parameter estimation is somewhat concise. It is not always entirely clear how raw experimental data were processed prior to fitting, whether nonlinear regression was performed using a specific algorithm, or what statistical criteria were used to assess goodness of fit.

Concerning the calculation of kinetic parameters, the paper indicates that these were derived from fitting the experimental data to the proposed kinetic model, but the computational procedure is not exhaustively described. The reader can infer that parameters such as rate constants were obtained through model-based regression; however, the manuscript does not fully specify the fitting protocol (e.g., software used, optimization method, weighting strategy, treatment of uncertainty). As a result, while the conceptual basis for parameter calculation is understandable, the practical implementation lacks some transparency.

Additionally, it is unclear how many samples were tested. It is known that the samples came from two locations, but was only one sample from each site tested? Are they representative? After all, the sediment composition will depend on the sampling location, depth, and many other parameters. The sampling methodology needs to be clarified.

The attached PDF file highlights some shortcomings and ambiguities. Furthermore, the conclusions were described very briefly; they should be expanded.

In summary, the article is scientifically sound and clearly structured, but the methodological section could be expanded to provide a more detailed and reproducible description of how kinetic parameters were calculated. Greater clarity in the data analysis workflow and parameter estimation procedure would strengthen the technical rigor of the manuscript.