Predicting the Function of the Dissolution Rate with Depth Using Drilling Data from Shallow Strata at Karst Sites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Engineering Overview is too concise: the geological and morphological information necessary to understand the geological context is missing. It should be remembered that in the field of karst phenomena, it must always be considered that the typology and intensity of the epi and hypogean karst forms are closely connected with the ancient and recent geological history of the substrate as well as with the geographical vicissitudes.
In addition to correctly describing the geological characteristics, the geotechnical characteristics of the substrate (intensity of fracturing, porosity, RQD, ...) and the morphological ones (thickness of the loose cover, morphology of the rocky substrate, type of fillings of the voids, ...) must also be defined. This is why at least two geological sections are appropriate, if not a three-dimensional geological-morphological model.
The piezometric levels of the two aquifers present must also be reported in the sections. It is necessary to describe the depth reached by the bores (all equal to XX meters, varying from X to Y meters, …).
Beyond the descriptions, some images of the site and especially of the extracted cores (or of the recordings of the progress data of the peaks) are absolutely necessary to illustrate the types of karst forms encountered. Only by correctly framing the past geological context, the past and present geomorphological context, the current hydrogeological context, will the long exposition of the statistical functions have meaning. About which:
In chapter 3, point 2, it is not clear how the dissolution rate is defined and why those parameters have been chosen to define it. In general, the reasons that led to the choice of the different parameters should be explained. Both those to define the extent of karstification and those to define the bearing capacity of the substrate.
In chapter 4, point 1, line 155, formula (5) is incorrect: it is (H - H0)!
They tell me that it is the practice to report the bibliographic entries from which the adopted formulas have been taken. This is never done but must be integrated.
Furthermore, what is even more important since this is a "geological-geomorphological-hydrogeological" article is to explain why those parameters were adopted for the definition of the good foundational attitude of the substrate.
In summary, in addition to integrating chapters 3 and 4 with due citations, chapter 2 should be expanded, fully describing the local geo-morpho-hydrological characteristics, building descriptive geological and morphological sections, providing table 1 with geotechnical data on the characteristics of the substrate and cover.
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the author's reply on the review comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments can be found as an attached file. The manuscript has positive attributes and has both theoretical and practical value, but the presentation quality needs to be improved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of the English is generally very good
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the author's reply on the review comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please check the attachment for the author's reply on the review comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Additions have made this article publishable. What remains is a work experience and a study methodology valid only for the area in question, certainly not exportable to other karst contexts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for carefully considering my suggestions for modifications, and for responding to them in a positive way. I am pleased to recommend the revised manuscript for acceptance.
The quality of the English is fairly good. As a reviewer, I receive many manuscripts written by authors who are not native English speakers. I do not expect perfection in grammar and phrasing; my concern is whether or not the writing will be understandable to readers. This manuscript passes that test. Production editing may produce minor improvements.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Predicting Function of Dissolution Rate along Depth Using Drilling Data from Shallow Strata in Karst Site" by Xiaolan Xie, Hailing Li, Gangchen Sun, Xianfa Cao was submitted for second review.
As can be seen from the submitted manuscript and the explanatory note to the review, the authors did a lot of work to make changes in accordance with the comments. The revised manuscript is a completed scientific study on a highly relevant topic within prediction of karst formations. The revised version of the manuscript, in my opinion, fully satisfies the requirements of a scientific article and can be published in the open press.
