Review Reports
by
- Diego Voccia 1,
- Giacomo Mortella 1 and
- Lucrezia Lamastra 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Irina Yu Kudrevatykh Reviewer 2: John C.-C. Lu Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well written. It deals with a very relevant topic, especially for densely populated Europe. The article is recommended for publication with the correction of minor errors.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The article is well written. It deals with a very relevant topic, especially for densely populated Europe. The article is recommended for publication with the correction of minor errors.
Response 1: we want to thank you for your contribution to reviewing our manuscript and for your positive evaluation. The changes you suggested have been made to the manuscript. In particular:
- All acronyms are now correctly indicated (please see lines 84, 85 and 112).
- Tables now show uniformly all capital letters (please see Tables 1 and 2).
- All dimensions are now reported uniformly with brackets (please see Table 5).
- Figure 1 now reports the correct caption as suggested (please see Figure 1).
- The missing point has been properly added (please see line 364).
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The originality, accuracy, and completeness of the work are satisfactory.
2. The arrangements of references should be consistent throughout the references list.
3. The authors are suggested to revise some typing errors in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The originality, accuracy, and completeness of the work are satisfactory.
Response 1: we would like to thank you for your contribution to reviewing our manuscript and for your positive evaluation.
Point 2: The arrangements of references should be consistent throughout the references list.
Response 2: all references in the manuscript are now consistent with the references list (please see line 363 with ref. 47).
Point 3: The authors are suggested to revise some typing errors in the manuscript.
Response 3: all typing errors, including the ones kindly suggested by the reviewer, are now revised and corrected (please see lines 425, 431, 445 and 492).
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have worked on the “Evaluating groundwater pollution and groundwater grey water footprint on a regional scale: the case of the Vulnerable Areas of the Emilia – Romagna region in Italy”. The manuscript is well written, and organized and is merit for publication. Before accepting this article, the following necessary changes need to be incorporated.
1. Overall the manuscript needs to be checked for grammatical and typo errors.
2. The title of the paper needs to be fine-tuned or shortened.
3. Update the latest references.
4. What makes this research unique or mention its novelty?
5. Is this methodology applicable in a particular region?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Authors have worked on the “Evaluating groundwater pollution and groundwater grey water footprint on a regional scale: the case of the Vulnerable Areas of the Emilia – Romagna region in Italy”. The manuscript is well written, and organised and is merit for publication. Before accepting this article, the following necessary changes need to be incorporated.
Response 1: we would like to thank you for your contribution to reviewing our manuscript and for your positive evaluation.
Point 2: Overall the manuscript needs to be checked for grammatical and typo errors.
Response 2: the entire manuscript has been revised for grammar and typo errors.
Point 3: The title of the paper needs to be fine-tuned or shortened.
Response 3: as suggested, we changed the paper’s title from “Evaluating groundwater pollution and groundwater grey water footprint on a regional scale: the case of the Vulnerable Areas of the Emilia – Romagna region in Italy” to “The anthropic pressure on the grey water footprint. The case of the Vulnerable Areas of the Emilia – Romagna region in Italy”
Point 4: Update the latest references.
Response 4: up-to-date publications on the topic have been taken into account and considered in the state of the art in the introduction section (please see lines 108-115).
Point 5: What makes this research unique or mention its novelty?
Response 5: in response to this question, we have extended the conclusion section (please see lines 638-644). The approach adopted for developing GWF and WPL regional maps has its strength and potential in environmental assessment evaluation, not only in terms of N but also other potential groundwater pollutants. Furthermore, a method for the estimation of non-agricultural groundwater N pollution was proposed to better understand the anthropogenic pressure on groundwater aquifers.
Point 6: Is this methodology applicable in a particular region?
Response 6: in response to this question, we have extended the conclusion section (please see lines 638-644), emphasising the versatility of the proposed method to be applied in every region worldwide.