Using COP Model to Map the Vulnerability of Groundwater Wells Adjacent to Landfills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Peer-reviewer,

Thank you so much for the valuable comments. All comments have been addressed. Please note that some lines numbers have been changed. The responses to all comments are in the attached file.

Look forward to getting this work published soon. 

Sincerely yours,

All authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

1.   Rewrite the abstract, here only explain the study area before problem and then what is problem? and how it solved and then what is the outcome. Only mention the COP as an applied model, it is not required to explain all parameters of COP model in the abstract, move these explanations to the methodology section.

2.    In the Key words (Line 31), COP two times repeated, use only one of them.

3.   Introduction

·        Introduction is too long.

·        What is novelty in this study? Add some statement at the end of your introduction section to explain the novelty of this study and what is bring this study to the subject area.

4.   Materials and methods

·        Add subsection with the title “study area” to explain your study area geographically, geologically and hydrogeologically with detailed figures.

·        Table (2) in the line 173 is not required, can be removed or attached as an appendix (This is not thesis).

·        Table (3) line 174, remove this table, only show one location map with coordinate value.

·        Section (2.3), why you applied COP model? As you stated COP model is applied in Karst region (Line 13), while there is no karst feature in your study area (Line 183), for this reason I prefer to apply DRASTIC, SINTACS,…..etc in your study area instead of COP model.

·        Try to convert text in this section to one small chart to explain how you computed each parameter in the COP model. Here only explain COP model briefly as you explained in the abstract.

·        Table (4), line 270, is not required (again this is not thesis).

·        In the line (183), you mentioned that there is no surface karst feature in your study area, so you selected the second scenario, while in the line (285) you interpreted the moderate vulnerability class as a result of fissured karstic condition!!!!!! This confuse.

·        Figures (2-11), enhance all these map in terms of legend, font size, ….etc. Why you put the Royal Science Society at these maps? Are you constructed these maps by yourself or not? If yes, so is not required to put this logo on your maps, otherwise, if you only used these maps that constructed by this society so it is not required to have a methods section, and only mentioned that you used maps that previously constructed and only you gave your idea about these maps. 

·        In the line (346), explain why you take two rounds of sampling.

·        Move lines (393-409) before table (6).

·        Again move each related text before its table.

·        Line (432), this paragraph is not related to your results, so you should move this paragraph to compare it with your vulnerability results (here is your water quality results).

·        It is important to validate your vulnerability results in more details with more emphasis with your groundwater quality results to confirm the validity of COP model in your study area.

     Conclusion

·        In this section, only highlight most of your important results and your expression to the problem and your recommendation.

·        Explaining COP model and how is developed is not required in conclusion section (remove lines 444-447).

Author Response

Dear Peer- Reviewer,

Thank you so much for the valuable comments. Kindly find attached our responses to your comments. Kindly note that some lines' numbers have been changed. 

We look forward to getting this piece of work published soon.

Sincerely yours,

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

English corrections are required to be carried out

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

Kind regards,

All authors 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments