Geoenvironmental Engineered Structures for Water Protection: Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable Liners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work addresses a relevant topic. The methodology of the analytical study has been chosen and implemented competently. In my opinion, the conclusion of the article needs further refinement. Comments are provided below:

1. It seems that Figure 1 is not necessary; the SDG goals can simply be listed in the text.

2. Could you please clarify what is being regulated in accordance with the requirements of Table 1?

3. It is necessary to rewrite the "Conclusion" section. It is assumed that the conclusion should provide a summary of the properties, parameters, applicability, and prospects of using geomaterials. The conclusion should contain concise and structured information based on the collected data, focusing on their practical applicability and the potential for planning further research. It is recommended to specify promising research directions that could contribute to the development of the respective materials.

Author Response

C1. The work addresses a relevant topic. The methodology of analytical study has been chosen and implemented competently. In my opinion, the conclusion of the article needs further refinement. Comments are provided below:

R1.  Thank you very much for your comment. We have improved the Conclusions as highlighted. Your comments have been very useful to refine the manuscript.

C2. It seems that Figure 1 is not necessary; the SDG goals can simply be listed in the text.

R2.  Thank you very much for your comment. We have removed and listed in the text as requested, it is highlighted in the Introduction in “SDG 9 relates by advancing research … waste generation reduction and valorization support these goals.”.

C3. Could you please clarify what is being regulated in accordance with the requirements of Table 1?

R3.  Thank you very much for your comment. We have clarified what was the objective and what is regulated according to the requirements exposed in Table 2 (we have changed the order due to other reviewer request), as highlighted in “The regulations outlined in Table 2 established … helping to determine the environmental safety of waste disposal sites.”.

C4. It is necessary to rewrite the "Conclusion" section. It is assumed that the conclusion should provide a summary of the properties, parameters, applicability, and prospects of using geomaterials. The conclusion should contain concise and structured information based on the collected data, focusing on their practical applicability and the potential for planning further research. It is recommended to specify promising research directions that could contribute to the development of the respective materials.

R4.  Thank you very much for pointing out. These revisions will significantly enhance the paper by addressing the reviewers’ concerns and reinforcing its contribution to the field of geoenvironmental engineering. We have changed and included all the information requested in the Conclusions, it truly expanded and improved this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lack of research on alternative materials and structures:

Although the paper discusses various lining materials in environmental engineering, it does not delve into the research of alternative materials and structures. In the future, research on new and sustainable materials as well as innovative structures should be strengthened to provide more diverse solutions.

2. Insufficient comprehensive assessment of ecological and environmental impacts:

When discussing the impact of lining structure on the environment, the paper mainly focuses on aspects such as air quality, soil and water pollution, but the long-term impact assessment on ecosystems is not comprehensive enough. Add comments on aspects such as ecosystem health and biodiversity.

3. Insufficient analysis of specific cases in practical applications:

Although the paper covers various environmental engineering applications such as landfills and reservoirs, there is a lack of specific case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of research results in practical applications. Suggest adding field application cases to verify the practicality and effectiveness of research results.

4. Limitations of research methods and technical means:

The paper may have certain limitations in research methods and technical means, such as experimental conditions, data collection and analysis methods, etc. The author should pay attention to the latest scientific research progress and adopt more advanced and precise research methods to improve the accuracy and reliability of the research.

5. Insufficient consideration of policies and regulations:

The paper lacks in-depth consideration of policies and regulations when exploring the design and application of lining layers. It is suggested that research should strengthen understanding of the construction standards and testing procedure specifications for lining layers in various countries, and consider how to comply with and apply these regulations in practice.

 

Author Response

C1. Lack of research on alternative materials and structures: Although the paper discusses various lining materials in environmental engineering, it does not delve into the research of alternative materials and structures. In the future, research on new and sustainable materials as well as innovative structures should be strengthened to provide more diverse solutions.

R1.  Thank you very much for your comment. While the paper provides a thorough review of conventional liner materials, we acknowledge the need for further research into sustainable and innovative materials and structures for liners. We have added this theme as highlighted in “7. Alternative Liners”.

C2. Insufficient comprehensive assessment of ecological and environmental impacts: When discussing the impact of lining structure on the environment, the paper mainly focuses on aspects such as air quality, soil and water pollution, but the long-term impact assessment on ecosystems is not comprehensive enough. Add comments on aspects such as ecosystem health and biodiversity.

R2.  Thank you very much for your comment. While the paper discusses the impact of liner structures on air quality, soil contamination, and water pollution, we acknowledge that a more comprehensive evaluation of long-term ecosystem health and biodiversity effects is needed. Liners play a crucial role in preventing the migration of contaminants; we have added in Discussion, highlighted in “While the discussion … findings of laboratory experiments.”, the aspects on ecosystem health and biodiversity.

C3. Insufficient analysis of specific cases in practical applications: Although the paper covers various environmental engineering applications such as landfills and reservoirs, there is a lack of specific case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of research results in practical applications. Suggest adding field application cases to verify the practicality and effectiveness of research results.

R3.  Thank you very much for your comment. Although the paper outlines the use of liners in various geoenvironmental applications, there is a lack of specific case studies, further limiting their demonstration. Furthermore, we have changed the heading numbering to highlight several references which have shown case studies, this topic deserved a specific heading “4. Liners in Waste Disposal and Containment Facilities” to show some examples focusing on landfilling.

C4. Limitations of research methods and technical means: The paper may have certain limitations in research methods and technical means, such as experimental conditions, data collection and analysis methods, etc. The author should pay attention to the latest scientific research progress and adopt more advanced and precise research methods to improve the accuracy and reliability of the research.

R4.  Thank you very much. We recognize that the research does not focus on methods limitations, particularly regarding experimental conditions, data collection techniques, and analytical precision. Furthermore, we have added in Discussion as highlighted in “However, it is well known … material behavior [184]”.

C5. Insufficient consideration of policies and regulations: The paper lacks in-depth consideration of policies and regulations when exploring the design and application of lining layers. It is suggested that research should strengthen understanding of the construction standards and testing procedure specifications for lining layers in various countries and consider how to comply with and apply these regulations in practice.

R5.  Thank you very much for pointing out. We have inserted that a more in-depth analysis of policies and compliance requirements is necessary to strengthen its practical implications, following the highlighted in 3. Waste Crisis and in 5.2. Heavy Metals.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review deals with the topic of Geoenvironmental Works for Water Protection. It reviews geotechnical and hydraulic barriers as revetments and highlights the lack of investigation and problematic aspects of these. In addition, it reviews the literature on earthworks which are specific configurations of revetments. It also highlights the different guidelines across several countries for revetment construction standards and test program specifications...

Overall, this review is well written, the theme is original and trendy, the methodology followed is quite correct, the content is very interesting. However, I have some recommendations:

- In addition to the sustainable economic and geoenvironmental actions that could be recommended, the authors do not think that strict regulation should be imposed by the countries themselves. Isn't sustainability research without strong legal support mandatory to avoid an environmental catastrophe that affects the entire planet?

I think that the regulatory section could have enriched this review. The authors could address the laws and regulations that already exist and those that are missing and that must imperatively be established if we really wanted to seriously address this environmental problem.

- The plagiarism rate detected is 16, I suggest to the authors to minimize this rate.

- Several references cited in this review are quite old, namely reference 227 dating from 1990, reference 228 dating from 1992, references 197 and 198 dating from 1989, reference 199 dating from 1990 ...

The authors can justify this choice or propose other more recent references in their place.

Author Response

C1. This review deals with the topic of Geoenvironmental Works for Water Protection. It reviews geotechnical and hydraulic barriers as revetments and highlights the lack of investigation and problematic aspects of these. In addition, it reviews the literature on earthworks which are specific configurations of revetments. It also highlights the different guidelines across several countries for revetment of construction standards and test program specifications. Overall, this review is well written, the theme is original and trendy, the methodology followed is quite correct, the content is very interesting. However, I have some recommendations:

R1.  Thank you very much for your comments and all your recommendations were very useful and provided a deep improvement to the manuscript.

C2. In addition to the sustainable economic and geoenvironmental actions that could be recommended, the authors do not think that strict regulation should be imposed by the countries themselves. Isn't sustainability research without strong legal support mandatory to avoid an environmental catastrophe that affects the entire planet?

R2.  Thank you very much for your comment. We acknowledge the critical role of strict regulations in reinforcing sustainability research and ensuring the effective implementation of environmental protection strategies. While our study emphasizes sustainable economic and geoenvironmental actions, we recognize that without strong legal frameworks, sustainability efforts may lack enforcement and long-term impact. To address this concern, we expanded the discussion by highlighting how legislative measures at national and international levels are essential to preventing environmental degradation and promoting responsible waste management. This addition will strengthen the paper’s argument that sustainability research should not only propose technical solutions but also advocate for policy integration and compliance mechanisms.

C3. I think that the regulatory section could have enriched this review. The authors could address the laws and regulations that already exist and those that are missing and that must imperatively be established if we really want to seriously address this environmental problem.

R3.  Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that the inclusion of a regulatory section would significantly enhance the review by providing a comprehensive overview of existing environmental laws and identifying gaps that need to be addressed. In response to this recommendation, we incorporated the following text highlighted in lines 184-190; 276-284; 357-364; 805-811, reinforcing the necessity of harmonizing legal and technological advancements in environmental protection.

C4. The plagiarism rate detected is 16, I suggest to the authors to minimize this rate.

R4.  Thank you very much for your comment. We have taken appropriate measures to minimize the similarity rate to below the acceptable threshold.

C5. Several references cited in this review are quite old, namely reference 227dating from 1990, reference 228 dating from 1992, references 197 and 198dating from 1989, reference 199 dating from 1990… The authors can justify this choice or propose other more recent references in their place.

R5.  Thank you very much for your comment. We appreciate the concern regarding older references in the manuscript. While certain foundational studies provide essential background information and historical context, we recognize the importance of incorporating recent advancements. To address this, we have updated the references where more recent research has expanded upon or validated the older findings of articles, reports, and case studies published.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the article can be published

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary modifications as requested and there are currently no problems.