Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of the Water of the Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To,

 

Editor 

Journal of Sustainability

 

Subject:-Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji Waters. sustainability-2365656

 

Dear Sir,

With thanks on entrusting review of manuscript. I submit following comments for the consideration;

1. The nitrate concentration is indicated quite high, and source of contamination was not well defined.The rivers are fresh water due to ice melt and they mostly do not contains nitrates to level of 40 ppm. 
2. What was the source of sulphate quite high (L1) in table 3 and why that it remained same for the both seasons.
3. The total hardness (TH) is sum of Ca, Mg and CO3 (40:60) that most of values indicated higher than the parent TH that may kindly correct please, the CaCO3 may also corrected.
4. If water indicated less than pH 8.4 than carbonate could zero, this may also correct please.
5. The conductivity and TDS values are incorrect, check throughout manuscript.
6. Most of figures did not discussed and corrosion figures were not derived.
7. The two rivers were not well explained the source water, sources of pollution, water discharge and rain in area. 
8. This was not also determined any control sample that may not to be polluted particularly for corrosion.
9. What was burden of corrosivity of present studies, implications of sustainability notes were not chalked in this manuscript.
10. Is there any industrial use of this water.
11. Statistical analysis was missing i.e t-test to compare between river samples and two rivers.This test may also required for evaluating the pre and post monsoon.
12. The corrosion mainly because of iron and other transition metals, why did not authors checked these metals and added in present studies.
13. It is please provided the Location distance, GPS, distance between k1, K2 and L1 and L2. If spatial and temporal studies may explained with table distributed of 48 samples.
14. I think present data is short  or the concept model need more applications.
15. The reason of low pH was not described, as bicarbonate was not present. The calibration of pH meter may ensure and explain.

-

Author Response

first we want to say a big thank you for going through the manuscript. All your concerns were strongly in line with standards and we have taken time to address all of them one after another.

Thank you again for the time you took out of your busy schedule to go through the work. we are most grateful.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript entitled “Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji Waters” by Alum et al.  evaluated a total of 48 water samples drawn from Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji located in Ezeagu and Uzo-uwani, which assessed the water quality to ascertain its viability for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes. Moreover, the author suggested that the waters from both rivers are supersaturated and have the potential to scale. Therefore, this manuscript is strongly relevant with the readership of Sustainability. The revised manuscript can be considered for acceptance after the following minor issues are addressed.

1. The number of significant figures in Table 4 and 5 need to be unified.

2. The typing format for the ions in Figure 2 and 3 should be corrected.

3. The author should summarize the main values in the series of Figure 10, which would be more clear. Moreover, some descriptions on the Figure 10a-x are missing.

4. The format of some references exist problems. Such as reference “Abugu HO, Alum OL, Ekere NR, Eze IS, Ucheana IA, Ezugwu AL and Ihedioha JN, (2023). Hydrochemical Assessment of the Rivers Adada and Obinna in Enugu, Nigeria, for Irrigational Application J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2023, 149(5): 04023009 DOI: 10.1061/JIDEDH.IRENG-9899” etc, please check. 

The quality of English language is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for taking out time to go through our manuscript. all your concerns were in line and we have addressed them accordingly.

Big thank you 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Many thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript. This research work is interesting, but additional deep analysis is needed and the article needs to be rewritten.

Specific comments:

1. Large number of equations, but they are not very relevant to the analysis of the results .

2. There are too many figures, e.g. Figure 10 consists of 24 sub-figures, which is impossible for a paper.

Recommended references:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-013-2691-6

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002216941200950X

Author Response

Thank you for finding out time to review our manuscript. All your concerns were sufficiently addressed accordingly.

 

Thank you once again

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

To,

 

Editor 

Journal of Sustainability

 

Subject:-Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji Waters.

 

Dear Sir,

I submit my comments following for your consideration.

1. I think most of answers that did not carefully responded. 
2. There are no significant variations in two rivers as suggested anova, two rivers are presented as separate studies, which should discuss together. The authors may review the manuscript and state the changes with line numbers, The following reference may read if helpful; Ngatia, M., Kithiia, S. M., & Voda, M. (2023). Effects of Anthropogenic Activities on Water Quality within Ngong River Sub-Catchment, Nairobi, Kenya. Water, 15(4), 660.
3. Causes of abnormal Nitrates in fresh water, that did not explained or corrected. Why did not wet season dilute the nitrate levels.
4. The samples for 48 and each sample was collected from 100ft distance was not well varied. The coordinates may checked and the distances of sampling stations may added. 
5. The sampling stations that caused the source of nitrate pollution may indicated separately in manuscript.
6. Point 1, the nitrates source are poorly explained and did not compared the other reported values. The relevant works may added and corrections may made in results.
7. The method of nitrate may explained well and it’s validations.
8. Point 3, the total hardness as CaCO3 in mg/l (mol. Wt. 100g of CaCO3 = 40 g of Ca and 60 g of CO3) is incorrect here. In your results carbonate mass or 60 % is missing from your results. 
9. Point 4  needs explained.
10. Point 6 did poorly added or inappropriate information for section material methods.
11. Point 7 did not responded in terms of corrosion, The corrosion was not well described. why did title of manuscript attentions the corrosion and similarly the point 8 did not answered.
12. Table 8 may kindly explained well. Although tables are not clearly seen or WHO limits 
13. The graphs may be presented comparative variation with early and late seasons of both rivers and with yearwise. At present the graphs individual presentation of each river which should compare both rivers and times. Figures are many, may reduced and mixed together for two rivers. Figures are only indicated for 2019 not for 2020.
14. When pH is natural/acidic than why carbonate appears in your results.

 

 

 

To,

 

Editor 

Journal of Sustainability

 

Subject:-Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji Waters.

 

Dear Sir,

I submit my comments following for your consideration.

1. The most of answers that did not carefully responded. 
2. There are no significant variations in two rivers as suggested anova, two rivers are presented as separate studies, which should discuss together. The authors may review the manuscript and state the changes with line numbers, The following reference may read if helpful; Ngatia, M., Kithiia, S. M., & Voda, M. (2023). Effects of Anthropogenic Activities on Water Quality within Ngong River Sub-Catchment, Nairobi, Kenya. Water, 15(4), 660.
3. Causes of abnormal Nitrates in fresh water, that did not explained or corrected. Why did not wet season dilute the nitrate levels.
4. The samples for 48 and each sample was collected from 100ft distance was not well varied. The coordinates may checked and the distances of sampling stations may added. 
5. The sampling stations that caused the source of nitrate pollution may indicated separately in manuscript.
6. Point 1, the nitrates source are poorly explained and did not compared the other reported values. The relevant works may added and corrections may made in results.
7. The method of nitrate may explained well and it’s validations.
8. Point 3, the total hardness as CaCO3 in mg/l (mol. Wt. 100g of CaCO3 = 40 g of Ca and 60 g of CO3) is incorrect here. In your results carbonate mass or 60 % is missing from your results. 
9. Point 4  needs explained.
10. Point 6 did poorly added or inappropriate information for section material methods.
11. Point 7 did not responded in terms of corrosion, The corrosion was not well described. why did title of manuscript attentions the corrosion and similarly the point 8 did not answered.
12. Table 8 may kindly explained well. Although tables are not clearly seen or WHO limits 
13. The graphs may be presented comparative variation with early and late seasons of both rivers and with yearwise. At present the graphs individual presentation of each river which should compare both rivers and times. Figures are many, may reduced and mixed together for two rivers. Figures are only indicated for 2019 not for 2020.
14. When pH is natural/acidic than why carbonate appears in your results.
15. The statistics as keyword was less discussed and may added t-test.

Author Response

The review comments are wonderful and it has made the manuscript to be in a better shape. Almost all the concerns raised were sorted and we hope it was satisfactorily done. we also plead that if there are areas that need further attention, please specify the exact place to touch and what is exactly required of us. in some cases, it was difficult for us to grasp what is needed of us.  

Thank you so much for your time and energy

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has done an excellent job of revising the manuscript. My only concern is that Figure 10 takes up 12 pages.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the effort and time you have devoted for this manuscript. your input has tremendously improved the manuscript. we are very grateful for that. 

Thank you immensely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

To,

 

Editor

Journal of Sustainability 

 

Subject:-Characterization of the Hydrochemistry, Scaling and Corrosivity 

Tendencies, and Irrigation Suitability of Rivers Karawa and Iyiaji Waters, sustainability-2365656 

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am submitting following my points in response of revision; the highlights in manuscript may indicated only on recent improvements. 

1. Response to point 1 was not satisfactory: the high concentration of nitrates  in freshwater flows of river that may corrected or even units. These high values are even not supported with earlier studies.
2. Points 3 and 4 were not corrected.
3. Points 7, 8 and 9 were not responded.
4. The important transition metals I.e Fe and Mn were not assessed for the corrosion as asked in point 11.
5. Not responded appropriately for points 12 and 13. 
   
   

.

Author Response

see attached document. 

please we plead for your kind consideration to please explain further  what is expected of us to correction. we are finding it difficult to understand your statement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf