PPCP Monitoring in Drinking Water Supply Systems: The Example of Káraný Waterworks in Central Bohemia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study refers more to the monitoring of PPCPs of the Káraný waterwork that supplies drinking water to about 1/3 of Prague, than to the efficacy of two drinking water technologies (bank infiltration and artificial recharge) in removing PPCPs. In that sense, a revision of the title would be appropriate, e.g. “PPCPs monitoring in drinking water supply systems: The example of the Káraný waterwork in central Bohemia”.
When PPCPs abbreviation is used for the first time in the Abstract it is advised to be followed by its spelled-out version in parenthesis, then the short version PPCPs should only be used throughout the text and in consistence PPCPs not PPCP.
The last paragraph of the introduction should end up with the scope of the present study.
Materials and methods should contain a second subsection, e.g. 2.2. that would refer to how samples were taken and preserved prior analysis and to the analytical methods applied and the instrumentation being used for measuring the PPCPs in the water samples. This section should include data presented in Table 1 and mention clearly the exact time interval of the study e.g. from June 2015 till June 2017.
According to Water journal guidelines Results and Discussion should be in two separate sections. So, the discussion included under the section of “Results” should be moved to a successive section and further elaboration should be provided.
Conclusions can also be revised to reflect the above mentioned revisions.
Also:
Line 34. Correct “to use” to “to be used”.
Line 109. Add an s at the end of process.
Author Response
Dear colleague,
thanks in advance for an extremely careful review of our text. With regard to the many formal and factual remarks, I have all taken this into account in the new version of the text. Responses to your comments are highlighted in green.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript summarizes novel and interesting information about the fate of emerging pollutants in surface and groundwater, including during treatment by bank filtration and artificial recharge. The study should be of interest to the readers of the journal. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult for the reader to follow along because the manuscript's many language issues distract very much from its scientific content. That is, the presentation of the data and their interpretation is often confusing, figures and tables are not clearly identified/referenced, and words/phrases such as "significant" or "rarely" are used instead of quantitative data. Attached, the authors will find a heavily annotated version of their paper that hopefully helps them to improve the manuscript for a future resubmission.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear colleague,
thanks in advance for an extremely careful review of our text. With regard to the many formal and factual remarks, I have all taken this into account in the new version of the text. Responses to your comments are highlighted in yelow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In the revised version of their manuscript, the authors have address all concerns to my satisfaction.
