Groundwater Quality Prediction and Analysis Using Machine Learning Models and Geospatial Technology
, Pachaivannan Partheeban 2,*, Ranihemamalini Ranganathan 3 and Sundarambal Balaraman 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPrior to publication, several considerations are highlighted:
1)Regarding the article structure, the introduction and "related work" sections have similar content. Section 2 Related works can be integrated into section 1. It is recommended to merge these contents and extract key information. Enter the topic as soon as possible to highlight the significance and importance of the selected topic. At the same time, data splitting related content has already been introduced in 3.4 (lines 321-326 of the article), and similar content is repeated in 3.5. It is recommended that the author reorganize the article content.
2)In Figure 6 on line 339 and Figure 7 on line 340, the sizes of the figures are inconsistent. The text in Figure 8 is not fully displayed. In Figure 14 (line 576), the horizontal axis indicates years, but the corresponding content in the figure is dates. It is recommended to add the year before the date for a more intuitive view.
3)In line 567, contour maps of five factors are mentioned. It is recommended that the author combine the factors and extract a single value for display, which is more intuitive for the conclusion.
4)In lines 584-585, it is pointed out that the water quality is better in summer and worse in winter. However, in the figure, there is a low point in Dec-14, and the water quality is better; there is also a high point in Jun-20, and the water quality is worse. How can the author explain this?
5)The seven parameters selected in lines 235-238. Explain the respective meanings and why such selections are made for subsequent research. Also provide considerations and suggestions on what aspects should be taken into account regarding the research objective.
6)Line 84, please explain MLMs.
Line 177 [10] and line 182 [33,34] please confirm the note locations of these citation.
Line 340 caption of figure 7, Ca should be Ca2+?
Line 208 “Sedimentary and fractured rocks coexist in the area.” It is not professional. Overall, the manuscript should be modified by a professional geologist. Explain the geology(hydrogeology) and the method and procedure more and make it clear and repeatable.
Line 225 table 1, the head “Annual Rainfall mm” should be “Annual Rainfall /mm”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePrior to publication, several considerations are highlighted:
1)Regarding the article structure, the introduction and "related work" sections have similar content. Section 2 Related works can be integrated into section 1. It is recommended to merge these contents and extract key information. Enter the topic as soon as possible to highlight the significance and importance of the selected topic. At the same time, data splitting related content has already been introduced in 3.4 (lines 321-326 of the article), and similar content is repeated in 3.5. It is recommended that the author reorganize the article content.
2)In Figure 6 on line 339 and Figure 7 on line 340, the sizes of the figures are inconsistent. The text in Figure 8 is not fully displayed. In Figure 14 (line 576), the horizontal axis indicates years, but the corresponding content in the figure is dates. It is recommended to add the year before the date for a more intuitive view.
3)In line 567, contour maps of five factors are mentioned. It is recommended that the author combine the factors and extract a single value for display, which is more intuitive for the conclusion.
4)In lines 584-585, it is pointed out that the water quality is better in summer and worse in winter. However, in the figure, there is a low point in Dec-14, and the water quality is better; there is also a high point in Jun-20, and the water quality is worse. How can the author explain this?
5)The seven parameters selected in lines 235-238. Explain the respective meanings and why such selections are made for subsequent research. Also provide considerations and suggestions on what aspects should be taken into account regarding the research objective.
6)Line 84, please explain MLMs.
Line 177 [10] and line 182 [33,34] please confirm the note locations of these citation.
Line 340 caption of figure 7, Ca should be Ca2+?
Line 208 “Sedimentary and fractured rocks coexist in the area.” It is not professional. Overall, the manuscript should be modified by a professional geologist. Explain the geology(hydrogeology) and the method and procedure more and make it clear and repeatable.
Line 225 table 1, the head “Annual Rainfall mm” should be “Annual Rainfall /mm”
Author Response
Attached as file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsObservations
1. Indicate in the methodology the number of sampling campaigns carried out
2. In tables 2 and 4, review the units of alkalinity, total hardness (mg/L CaCO3) and electrical conductivity (µS/cm).
3. Review the charges of the ions (PO43-) and superscripts and subscripts
4. Review, in table 2, if the word desirable was used correctly or are the permissible values. And indicate the bibliographic reference in the table
5. In figures 4 and 5, the spatial-temporal variation is observed and it is mentioned that the high concentration in some study areas is due to groundwater contamination (lines 292-297), however, the graphs show that most of the values ​​are outside the desired range. I consider it important to mention the geology of the study area.
6. Improve the quality of figures 7 and 13, to clearly observe the ranges
Author Response
Attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe authors addressed the questions .
few points can be further improved.
1）abstract and conclusion should be improved. No citation should be placed in conclusion. Such as “(Al-Adhaileh and Alsaade, 2021).”;
Abstract “Water quality predictions in 2024” remove “in 2014”;
2)check the correctness of Line 240 “SO2, NO2, CA, MG,”; Line 560” Fig. 13 (a) through (e)”
3) Line 568 figure 14c the caption “GQI” while in figure the text is “WQI” why?
4) Figure 6. Total Dissolved Salt? Salt or solids?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
language should be polished carefully.
1）abstract and conclusion should be improved. No citation should be placed in conclusion. Such as “(Al-Adhaileh and Alsaade, 2021).”;
Abstract “Water quality predictions in 2024” remove “in 2014”;
2)check the correctness of Line 240 “SO2, NO2, CA, MG,”; Line 560” Fig. 13 (a) through (e)”
3) Line 568 figure 14c the caption “GQI” while in figure the text is “WQI” why?
4) Figure 6. Total Dissolved Salt? Salt or solids?
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments and Responses
Comment 1: abstract and conclusion should be improved. No citation should be placed in conclusion. Such as “(Al-Adhaileh and Alsaade, 2021).”;
Response 1: Abstract and conclusion improved and removed the references in conclusion
Comment 2: Abstract “Water quality predictions in 2024” remove “in 2014”;
Response 2: Modified as per the reviewer comments Prediction in2024
Comment 3: check the correctness of Line 240 “SO2, NO2, CA, MG,”; Line 560” Fig. 13 (a) through (e)”
Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer comments, corrected the parameters used in this research and same highlighted in the manuscript
Comment 4: Line 568 figure 14c the caption “GQI” while in figure the text is “WQI” why?
Response 4: Figure 14c and text corresponding is changed to GQI
Comment 5: Figure 6. Total Dissolved Salt? Salt or solids?
Response 5: Changes Total dissolved solids as suggested by reviewer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
