Temporal Fluctuations in Household Water Consumption and Operating Pressure Related to the Error of Their Water Meters
, Byron Medina-Armijos 1, Rutbel González-González 1, Francisco Javier Martínez-Solano 2,* and Mireya Lapo-Pauta 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with interesting analysis of the impact of household water consumption to the error of the water meters. In my opinion, this is a useful and relevant strategy that should be appreciated especially in areas where proper water service is of dubious quality. It's a good idea to link basic statistics and gauging tests together for determining a dependence and errors between water meter readings and actual consumption. And even if it is not very advanced research, its practical and utilitarian overtones should be appreciated. Especially since a lot of work has been put into making the appropriate tests.
It would be advisable to include at least short description of the research area including some basic information about where is it, what type of building, density, appearance of water tanks (usually in single-family house) etc.
Please explain clearly what it is about (p. 3) In Figure 1, there are fairly long periods of zero flow rate…, since there is no flow zero in Fig. 1. Maybe it's about fig 2?
On p. 7 (l. 244) is stated that …. errors generated by the water meters are quite high at 0%, but it’s difficult to recognize 0 value in the histogram, there is only a range -3.75-15.5?
The figures are of good quality and legible, however, in the fig. 1 pressure units are wrong (wcm) vs. (wmc). In title of fig. 4 capital letters are redundant.
The paper is clearly written, with sufficient explanation of the methods. The problem was solved and the adequate conclusions are presented.
In the equation [4] the Cv= symbol should be written or cancelled in both next to the arrow.
The dot at the end of the title is redundant, as in the titles of several chapters and figures (e.g. l. 87, l. 91 l. 171, l. 243, l. 261).
l. 35- stated that… not stated than….
l. 83/84- from domestic it….?
l. 378- touble dots in the end
It is necessary to check the text carefully in terms of editing.
All the references seem to be sufficient and cited in the paper, however please check the list and fix some editing inconsistencies , such as : lack of space [9] - efficiency.Environmental); [10] regimes.Water (what is Water?); [13] double dots; [18] strange page ranges; [24] is this correct? 6, 9781780402253? [28] publisher and full info about article.
So, please consider the suggestions given above. And thank you for the interesting practical paper.
In my opinion, the article is written in quite good understandable language, however several noticed mistakes should be improved and a linguistic check of the entire text is necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the responses to the reviewer’s comments.
Thanks a lot.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, your work is very interesting. Here are some suggestions to improve your work:
- Change “quality of water” to “water quality”;
- When in the introduction section you refer to improving the accuracy of water quality modeling in distribution networks, in addition to considering main and secondary pipes, the choice of the type of model used to model the water quality is also relevant 'water, as a function of the different regimes of motion. Identifying the behavior of water networks a priori also allows the use of complete models, only in some sections of the network, to reduce the computational load. Below you will find the references of what has been said: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1136/1/012049, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172707.
- The Results section is missing. Please add it.
- In the abstract, the purpose of the article is not clear. Specify it better.
- Insert a legend in the figures to describe the meaning of the different elements.
- In the conclusions section enter some data to support your conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the responses to the reviewer’s comments.
Thanks a lot.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the previous fixes have been performed. Before you can proceed with the publication, I suggest some minor corrections:
On line 102 and 105 correct “sin-gle-family houses” and “wa-ter”
Improve the quality of figure 2 and figure 3
On line 102 and 105 correct “sin-gle-family houses” and “wa-ter”
Author Response
Thank you again for your suggestions.
Next, I am explaining the changes we introduced to correct the mistakes we made.
Comment 1.
On line 102 and 105 correct “sin-gle-family houses” and “wa-ter”
Answer 1.
The hyphens were deleted so now it can be read "single family houses" and "water".
Anyway, we think these hyphens are automatically added by Word since we did not introduce them. The probable reason might be some unknown option accidentally activated.
Comment 2.
Improve the quality of figure 2 and figure 3
Answer 2.
We have now inserted both figures in a vectorial format (enhanced metafile). This way, the figure does not loose resolution no matter how much zoomo in we make.
We will communicate to the editor about all these changes.
Thanks again.
The authors.
