Centrifuge Modeling of Chloride Ions Completely Breakthrough Kaolin Clay Liner
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Before the article is accepted for publication, the authors must respond to the comments below:
- Revise your abstract including additional information about the problem studied. Before presenting the methodology used in the article, highlight the main objectives of your manuscript. In the current format the information is incomplete.
- In your introduction, review the number of generic citations used in the manuscript. For example, review the following sentence: “which are usually described by advection-dispersion equation[5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12].” It doesn't take 8 citations to highlight just equation (1). Instead, more fully highlight the references used.
- In the introduction, between lines 41-63, explain in more depth the cited references. Highlight, for example, the results obtained in each survey and how these surveys differ from the current survey conducted by the authors. If necessary, separate this paragraph into smaller ones.
- Review the information in Figure 1. The granulometric curve should be informed up to a percentage of 0%. If necessary, redo the analysis to change this setting.
- The methodology of the manuscript presents more complete information than the discussion of the results. Review this question, reducing the information highlighted in the methodology or increasing the information highlighted in the results.
- Compare the results of Figure 6 with other similar surveys. Please, in your discussion of results, perform a critical analysis of what was obtained, highlighting similarities and differences in the results, when compared to other studies that performed equivalent analyses.
- In your results discussion text, insert a brief explanation about Fig. 6. Note that at no time do the authors highlight the information that was obtained by this figure in textual form.
- In your manuscript there are two sections numbered “4”. Please review this numbering and correct accordingly. If necessary, make the first section 4 a subsection of topic 3.
- An important question, which should be highlighted very clearly in the text of the manuscript, is, what are the applications of the model proposed by the authors? In what situations can the model be used? If other researchers around the world used the same methodological procedures, would they obtain good results? What are the limitations of the method, which make the application of the model described in the research unfeasible? Please include this information in the revised text of your manuscript.
- Organize your conclusion in the form of topics, highlighting 3 to 4 important points observed in the manuscript. Make clear to manuscript readers the points that were discovered in your research.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Editor & the Reviewers for their constructive comments, which was of great help in improving the final manuscript. With careful consideration of the comments, the authors made significant revisions to the manuscript. Details of the revisions are given in the document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Please cite reference [17] on the title of Table 2 as well.
- Is Figure 1 also taken from reference [17]? If it is, please cite the reference. If not, please describe how the curve was obtained.
- Figure 2 – Please further elaborate the figure’s caption.
- Figure 6 – Since the pore-water velocity values lie between 1-2x10^-6 m/s, the scale of the y-axis needs to be adjusted appropriately.
- Figure 7 – Based on the reviewer’s understanding, the authors obtained conductivity first, then only converted into concentration. If the reviewer understands it correctly, then the primary (left) y-axis should be conductivity, and the secondary (right) one is concentration. It is also better for visualization purpose, since the conductivity curve lies on the left of concentration.
- Figure 8 – Since the C/Co values range between +/-1, the scale of the x-axis needs to be adjusted appropriately.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Editor & the Reviewers for their constructive comments, which was of great help in improving the final manuscript. With careful consideration of the comments, the authors made significant revisions to the manuscript. Details of the revisions are given in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The described model is quite simple and can help in prediction of pollution. My main concerns are in the description of the methodology, which must be improved. My recommendations:
1) Please indicate the accuracy of the devices (e.g. effluent collection device, pressure transducer, etc.) and the whole system used for the modelling. It must be added to the methods section to prove the accuracy of the performed measurements.
2) What was the calibration procedure mentioned in lines 123-124?
3) line 133 – how you measured the fully saturation, homogeneity and reproducibility of the samples
4) line 138 – any measurements on “good flow dynamics”
5) line 169-169 “The test was running by keeping the specified acceleration for the required duration.” please indicate the numbers
Author Response
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Editor & the Reviewers for their constructive comments, which was of great help in improving the final manuscript. With careful consideration of the comments, the authors made significant revisions to the manuscript. Details of the revisions are given in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded to all comments in the previous version. Therefore, I recommend the article for publication.
