The Dynamics of Water Wells Efficiency Reduction and Ageing Process Compensation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of
The dynamics of water wells efficiency reduction and aging process compensation
by Polak et al.
This manuscript presents a series of mathematical analyses about well aging. The authors claimed that the work makes it possible to determine when necessary adjustments of the operating parameters should be performed. The manuscript presents some efforts on calculations, I recommend for publication with minor revision.
Detailed comments can be found below.
Comments
The authors gave some recommendations for operating parameters in field. Please provide some field evidence that the recommendations are applicable (e.g., compare with reported field data).
Make the word “ageing” consistent (e.g., line 4).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. The authors gave some recommendations for operating parameters in field. Please provide some field evidence that the recommendations are applicable (e.g., compare with reported field data).
In the new version of manuscript we provided the field evidence example on Figure 2 and Figure 3 . This is graphical presentation of field test data. The description of results are also included in new CASE STUDY chapter.
2. Make the word “ageing” consistent (e.g., line 4).
This line was not necessary and its deleted.
I would like to thank for your kind revision and recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-405320 – Review
General comments
This paper by Krzysztof Polak, Kamil Górecki and Karolina Kaznowska-Opala is focused on the degradation process of water wells as a variable depending on the operation time, the well loss and the flow rate. The overall aim of the paper is to determine the moment of ageing compensations of the degradation processes of the water wells. Specifically, the authors highlight the importance of the correlation between hydraulic resistances in an aquifer and in the engineering structure. The aim of the analysis is to contribute to the tracking of the changes in the ageing process occurring in the engineering structures. The paper should be improved in terms of clarity and quality. An improved revised manuscript would address the following major comments.
Major Comments
The manuscript needs improvement regarding the structure of the sentences, paragraphs and most importantly sections of the paper (e.g. Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion). The authors do not fully follow the structure of the manuscript template as this is provided from the journal.
The Introduction of this paper consists of only two paragraphs. The authors should discuss in more detail what has been done before by previous researchers. Please do not add a big number of references for only a single sentence in your paper (e.g. Lines: 40, 44). Instead please try to discuss the work of these researchers, which is relevant to your study. Also, in the Materials and Methods part, readers can only read equations and parameters; very few complete sentences are included.
The paper is missing an important amount of references. Citations in the introduction referring to previous work are only superficially mentioned without any further information or relevance to the rest of the paper. The Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion sections should be re-structured so that more information on previous research is available and gaps in knowledge are clearly described supporting the aim of this paper and proving its novelty.
The authors should be more explanatory when starting a new section in their paper. The readers cannot be introduced to the problem discussed as the paper is presented at the moment. This is very important for the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Results and Discussion parts. These parts need significant improvement. However, the Abstract and Conclusions parts are well presented by the authors.
Please try to form your Conclusions without the presence of equations and parameters. This way it will be easier to read. There is plenty of space at the Discussion part to explain in detail these parameters (where is the Discussion part in your paper?). Please include only your interesting and valuable conclusions in this part of your paper. Union the last three paragraphs of your conclusions as they are too short to be in the paper as separate paragraphs.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to thank you for your helpful review.
Our response you will find in attached PDF file.
Kind regards,
Krzysztof Polak
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-405320 – Review 2
General comments
The authors improved a lot the paper in terms of clarity and quality from the previous review. However, an improved revised manuscript would address the following major comments that are very important.
Major Comments
The authors improved the Introduction section of this paper that previously consisted of only 2 paragraphs. The authors should start in a more general way the Introduction. The authors should also fix the references of the paper; first reference starts with number 25. The second paragraph of the Introduction does not need to be separated from the previous paragraph. The authors should not create such short paragraphs or refer to Figures in the Introduction. The authors should break paragraph 4 into 2 paragraphs as it is too long. Please cite the work of other researchers based on the instructions of Water journal. The 2 paragraphs that start with line 107 and 114, respectively, can be joined.
The Materials and Methods part is still too short. The authors should explain in more details their 2 assumptions on which their study is based. Again, the authors should avoid too short paragraphs.
The paper is still missing again references. The authors need to add more references in their paper. Most references are way too old. The authors should try to find more up to date references that are relevant to their work.
Again, the authors should be more explanatory when starting a new section in their paper. The authors did not improve that a lot throughout their paper. Every single paragraph throughout the paper should start with a small “introduction” so that the readers can follow what the authors try to address. For example, the Results and the Discussion should not start like that.
Please check your Figures if they meet the journal’s requirements.
The Conclusions section is too long. The authors can include some of this part of the Conclusions back to the Discussion. As mentioned before, please include only your interesting and valuable conclusions in this section of your paper. Notice your paragraph structure at this section.
The authors should check for spelling mistakes throughout the paper
The authors should reply to the Reviewer’s comments; answering each of these points one by one instead of the Reviewer to try to find the corrections made by the authors throughout the whole paper. Please add a short comment close to each change when needed.
Comments for author File: Comments.doc
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The reviewer general comments:
The authors improved a lot the paper in terms of clarity and quality from the previous review. However, an improved revised manuscript would address the following major comments that are very important.
Major Comments:
Point 1: The authors improved the Introduction section of this paper that previously consisted of only 2 paragraphs. The authors should start in a more general way the Introduction. The authors should also fix the references of the paper; first reference starts with number 25. The second paragraph of the Introduction does not need to be separated from the previous paragraph. The authors should not create such short paragraphs or refer to Figures in the Introduction. The authors should break paragraph 4 into 2 paragraphs as it is too long. Please cite the work of other researchers based on the instructions of Water journal. The 2 paragraphs that start with line 107 and 114, respectively, can be joined.
Response 1: More general start of Introduction was included (lines 33-38). References are numbered in order of appearance in the text. First and second paragraph are jointed in one (line 33-44). Previously, paragraphs (1 and 2) was braked in different issues. It was braked once again according to review 2. 11 new articles was cited in new version of manuscript according to Instructions of Water journal. Previous paragraphs lines 107-114 are jointed (new lines: 112-125).
Point 2. The Materials and Methods part is still too short. The authors should explain in more details their 2 assumptions on which their study is based. Again, the authors should avoid too short paragraphs.
Response 2: Materials and Methods is much longer at this moment. Previous summary of Introduction section now is used to explain fundamentals of our own considerations presented in Materials and Methods section (lines: 187-201). Moreover, the example taken from referenced paper was included in "little intro" to set out presumptions of our own theoretical considerations (lines: 163-186). 2 assumptions are explained in more details in lines: 202-221.
Point 3: The paper is still missing again references. The authors need to add more references in their paper. Most references are way too old. The authors should try to find more up to date references that are relevant to their work.
Response 3. The new 11 references dated on this century was cited in 3thd manuscript. Half of all references are dated on last 20 years. The references dated before 1990 are fundamental in the research area and can't be ignored. We don’t know the references directly relevant to dynamics of water wells ageing process. However, paper 25, 39 and 40 are related indirectly to the issue.
Point 4. Again, the authors should be more explanatory when starting a new section in their paper. The authors did not improve that a lot throughout their paper. Every single paragraph throughout the paper should start with a small “introduction” so that the readers can follow what the authors try to address. For example, the Results and the Discussion should not start like that.
Response 4: As it mentioned above, the explanation/intro to Material and Methods section was included in new manuscript (lines 162-221). Results and Discussion also contains “small intro” (lines: 243-250 and 312-317).
Point 5: Please check your Figures if they meet the journal’s .
Respons 5: The figure requirements have been re-checked. In my opinion figures corespond to journal requirements.
Point 6: The Conclusions section is too long. The authors can include some of this part of the Conclusions back to the Discussion. As mentioned before, please include only your interesting and valuable conclusions in this section of your paper. Notice your paragraph structure at this section.
Response 6: Previous conclusions returned to the discussion part (lines 395-426). A new section Conclusions has been included in the manuscript (lines 464-490). Nowadays, it is much more general.
Point 7: The authors should check for spelling mistakes throughout the paper.
Response 7: All text had been check by 2 independent, professional English speakers.
Point 8: The authors should reply to the Reviewer’s comments; answering each of these points one by one instead of the Reviewer to try to find the corrections made by the authors throughout the whole paper. Please add a short comment close to each change when needed.
Response 8: All corrections are generally visible in the attached file. However, I am aware of the fact that it is not visible enough in the details. So all corrections are listed above one by one (line number). I hope that the above explanations are adequate and comprehensive.
Once again, I would like to thank you for the constructive comments which helped to improve the manuscript.
Best regards and happy new year,
Krzysztof Polak
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-405320 – Review 3
General comments
The authors: Krzysztof Polak, Kamil Górecki and Karolina Kaznowska-Opala made a significant effort to answer all major suggestions of the Reviewer based on the previous Review. There are specific recommendations given from the Reviewer to the authors to make them understand what remains to be improved. Please read the following Minor corrections.
Minor Comments
Please delete blank lines 199, 448 and 494 in the paper.
The authors should explain a bit more Figure 1 capture with the different losses illustrated in the figure.
Paragraphs starting with line 213 and 217, respectively, can be joined. There is no need to be separated because they present the 2 different assumptions.
Line 262, please add “,” before the word which.
Line 110, please remove the word “etc” unless, you know the other effects as well. In this case, you should include all the other effects that you know.
Why the authors keep on having short paragraphs? Please improve that in the Results section as it is not good for the readers. For example: lines 306-310.
Line 479: Please explain this sentence. What the authors mean by “moment is moved into the future”.
Comments for author File: Comments.doc
Author Response
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-405320 – Review 3
Response to Review 2 Comments
General comments
The authors: Krzysztof Polak, Kamil Górecki and Karolina Kaznowska-Opala made a significant effort to answer all major suggestions of the Reviewer based on the previous Review. There are specific recommendations given from the Reviewer to the authors to make them understand what remains to be improved. Please read the following Minor corrections.
Minor Comments
Comment 1: Please delete blank lines 199, 448 and 494 in the paper.
Response 1. Blank lines have been removed.
Comment 2:The authors should explain a bit more Figure 1 capture with the different losses illustrated in the figure.
Response 2: Figure 1 has been corrected. The descriptions on the figure explain the components of drawdown in the well. The description under the figure has been expanded and explains the essence of turbulence around the well.
Comment 3:Paragraphs starting with line 213 and 217, respectively, can be joined. There is no need to be separated because they present the 2 different assumptions.
Response 3: We tried to do it as suggested by the reviewer. We are convinced that the previous division is much clearer. So, paragraphs beginning with lines 213 and 217 are now slightly improved. However, we would like to keep the previous form.
Comment 4:Line 262, please add “,” before the word which.
Response 4: Line 262 has been corrected.
Comment 5: Line 110, please remove the word “etc” unless, you know the other effects as well. In this case, you should include all the other effects that you know.
Response 5: We do not know the other effects (which does not exclude that they exist). The word "etc" has been removed.
Comment 6: Why the authors keep on having short paragraphs? Please improve that in the Results section as it is not good for the readers. For example: lines 306-310.
Response 6: With paragraphs we affect the different meanings of the text. As suggested by the reviewer lines 306-310 have been jointed (new lines: 303-308).
Comment 7: Line 479: Please explain this sentence. What the authors mean by “moment is moved into the future”?
Response 7: The compensation time depends on the initial hydraulic condition. The sentence in line 479 is a consequence of the previous one. It has been changed (new line: 476). We hope, it is correct at present form.
I would like to notice that line 424 has been supplemented by one sentence. We hope that our explanations and improvements will be accepted.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Polak
Author Response File: Author Response.doc