Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Introduction section need to re-organize the structure and writting..

figure 1,2,3 can be mapped in one figure.

I can not understand why the samples in water can be used in spatial distribution map? It is not meaningful in non water area.

it is suggested move the analysis method in results section the methods section.

The conclusion section need to more concise language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I was obliged to stop at line 284 the revision of your manuscript because I was not able to find any information useful for comprehending which kind of water samples you were presenting and discussing.

The location of the points in your maps indicates that you followed linear paths, but what are these? Rivers? Irrigation channels? Roads? And what kind of waters are these? Groundwaters? Surface waters? Without this information is no possible understanding what exactly is the object of your research.

The consequence of a spatial arrangement following a linear topology, as in your case, is that no contour maps can be derived from the measured values.  A contour map is an elaboration based on the spatial interpolation between values, but for correctly doing this measures must be distributed as homogeneously as possible throughout the investigated area. And this is definitely not your case. A different spatial representation should be chosen, e.g. profiles following your sampling paths.

Moreover, the novelty and the general application of your findings are not emphasised in the manuscript, which resembles a simple description of the state of fact of the investigated area.

Finally, the English needs a robust revision: I found numerous grammar errors in the first 284 text lines I examined.

Since I found a good potential for your work, that is based on a robust dataset, examined adopting a correct methodology, I warmly suggest to revise and improve it considering the above comments.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my questions are answered. However, I think the figures in this version are too many,which affects the reading efficiency. if it is possible, it can be reduce some.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for accepting changes in our manuscript and for your approval for publishing. We believe that number of pictures couldn't be reduced due to the presentation.

Thank you,

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

There authors,

after reading the revised version of the manuscript I found it significantly improved and now quite ready for publication. There are some minor issues to solve: the main concern is related to  what you presented as a geological map, which is a mix between a lithological and a geological map, also using in the legend incorrect geological terms. Please find any related detail and some minore suggestions in the attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions and for the approval that our manuscript could be published. We accepted your recommendations, and we changed the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you

Best regards