Soil and Groundwater Pollution Assessment and Delineation of Intensity Risk Map in Sulaymaniyah City, NE of Iraq

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PHCs ) is denoted as PAHs. Please check the whole text and make a correction. In line 60, the first DNAPL should be changed to NAPL to fulfill the sentence. In line 87, the authors indicate “the direction of pollution spread may be even opposite to the groundwater flow in special cases.” The authors need to provide key references or evidences to support this statement. Fig 3 can't demonstrate the actual study area. The authors need to identify the study area in the geological formation map. Furthermore, the authors should provide the vertical structure of geological formation in the study area to identify possible aquifer locations and actual hydraulic movement directions. The authors need to provide sampling depth information of each soil and groundwater sampling site. It is more important than the location information of each sampling site. In line 327, an incomplete sentence. The authors may also need to indicate the results of AHP assessment of each parameter for PRI index evaluation. Surface and subsurface soil samples locations in Table 1 do not match the results of LNPL concentration in soil samples in Table 6. The same question arise to Table 3 and Table 4. The authors didn't clearly indicate how to integrate all the analytical results to the construction processes of PRI map.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

onse to Reviewer

Dear Editor

We thank the chief editor, journal editor, and reviewers for their helpful suggestions and critique. Based on the comments, we have completely revised the paper. The sections introduction, material, and methods, results, and discussion have been considerably reshaped and rewritten.Other parts have been revised. Additionally, the English language was improved. The revised and additional paragraphs marked in red color so that the reviewers can easily assess the revised work. Further, we chose to reply to every comment in detail in the following list with the specific revisions that were made.

Thank you again.

Best regards.

Nadhir Al-Ansari

Corresponding author

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: In general, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PHCs) is denoted as PAHs. Please check the whole text and make a correction.

 

Response 1:

We are sorry for this, this an erratum, the abbreviation is corrected in the whole text.

 

Point 2: In line 60, the first DNAPL should be changed to NAPL to fulfill the sentence.

 

Response 2:

Thanks for this remark, it changed to NAPL

 

 Point 3:

 

In line 87, the authors indicate “the direction of pollution spread may be even opposite to the groundwater flow in special cases.” The authors need to provide key references or evidences to support this statement.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for this remark, a key reference is added.

 

Point 4: Fig 3 can't demonstrate the actual study area. The authors need to identify the study area in the geological formation map. Furthermore, the authors should provide the vertical structure of geological formation in the study area to identify possible aquifer locations and actual hydraulic movement directions.

Response 4:

Thanks for this remark, a stratigraphic column is added to the manuscript as shown in Fig.4

 

 Point 5:

 

The authors need to provide sampling depth information of each soil and groundwater sampling site. It is more important than the location information of each sampling site.

 

Response 5:

Thanks for this remark, the information is in the section of materials and methods

 

 

Point 6: In line 327, an incomplete sentence.

 

Response 6:

Thanks for this, there is nothing else to say in this sentence.

 

Point 7: The authors may also need to indicate the results of AHP assessment of each parameter for PRI index evaluation.

 

Response 7:

Table 12 has been changed and the results of AHP assessment of each parameter for PRI index evaluation have been added. (line 517 in red) in the manuscript.

 

Point 8:

 

Surface and subsurface soil samples locations in Table 1 do not match the results of LNPL concentration in soil samples in Table 6. The same question arises to Table 3 and Table 4.

 

Response 8:

Thanks a lot, I think it is correct

 

Point 9: The authors didn't clearly indicate how to integrate all the analytical results to the construction processes of PRI map.

 

Response 9:

some paragraph has been added based on your comments. (line 503 in red) in the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the Manuscript “Soil and groundwater pollution assessment and delineation of intensity risk map in Sulaimaniyah City, NE of Iraq, by Mohammed Amin, DA. et al. submitted to Water, MDPI. Manuscript ID: water-592888.  

 

This study describes an environmental site assessment surrounding a petrol station and an oil refinery unit, showing several groundwater monitoring wells polluted with LNAPLs and one soil sample affected by DNAPLs. In addition, the study comprises a polluted intensity risk map (PRI), by means of a weighted sum approach within a GIS environment, including seven variables (depth to water table, recharge, lithology, among others). The purpose of the PRI is to improve environmental management practices in petroleum facilities.  

 

Major concerns

This manuscript is interesting; however, it has some gaps in terms of what are the main scientific contributions of this work. In its present form, it seems that the text is a consulting report rather than a scientific paper, and it is basically written for local readers, and not for a wider audience.

What was challenging in this study? Which outcome is transferable to other parts of the world with similar conditions? What is the main novelty? None of these is included in the current version. The authors need to do a much better job in addressing all these aspects including an improved state-of-the-art review, to point out the novelties in the case study, in relation to precedent methodologies. Therefore, a significant revision is needed before final publication with the focus on the discussion of scientific relevancies of the local case study for a wider readership.

The manuscript can be divided into two major sections. The first one deals with a very routinely approach to analyze the pollution degree in soil and groundwater within a petroleum facility. From my point of view, there is nothing novel in this part. As presented, the soil and groundwater sampling appear to be a typical environmental site assessment, as performed by any consulting firm. The second part, however, is scientifically more challenging/interesting, because is the one related to the polluted intensity risk map (PRI). This scheme is relatively unexamined in relation to the former, and thus, this part should be the focus of the manuscript. However, in its current form, the manuscript seems to be exactly the opposite way. The authors must carefully revise the English language. There are typos, grammatical errors and poorly written phrases throughout the manuscript. I highly recommend that a native English-spoken person can review the final version.

 

 

Specific comments

L35, Introduction. In accordance to suggestion (2) within the “Major concerns” Section, please provide a thoughtful state-of-the-art revision in relation to precedent methodologies dealing with polluted intensity risk maps, or analogous strategies.

L57, 63, 71 and more. More scholarly citations are needed to briefly discuss the main challenges of LNAPL/DNAPL plumes in aquifers.

L181, ¿What is a “real” aquifer? ¿Is there a “virtual” aquifer, then?

L181, 186, and more. Avoid using qualitative expressions, such as “excellent porosity” or “large quantity of water”. Instead refer to a quantitative term (e.g. a porosity of 20%, 25%, …).

L326, Why specifically the authors used an inverse distance weighted technique to delineate iso-contours? Why not kriging or splines, or other technique? Did they perform a geostatistical analysis? Please justify.

L329, The authors should not wait until L329 to explicitly describe and establish the main contribution of the manuscript, which is the polluted risk intensity map. State your contribution early in the manuscript!

L335, The PRI map is a weighted sum including seven hydrogeological parameters. In fact, except the lineament density (L) and the distant to pollutant sources (DS), Eq. (1) is essentially the popular DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987) approach for mapping groundwater vulnerability. In fact, recent DRASTIC approaches include structural characteristics (e.g. lineaments; subsidence-related tensile cracks), such as DRASTIC-Fm (Denny et al. 2007) or DRASTIC-Sg model (Hernández-Espriú, et al. 2014), respectively.

Thus, The PRI map is an extended-DRASTIC vulnerability map, or is a risk map? There are important differences between vulnerability and risk. The authors should perfectly clarify these differences. In addition, if Eq. (1) is quite similar to DRASTIC, what is the novelty of the approach?

L334-335, What were the methods/techniques/approaches for estimating the seven variables? For instance, various techniques are available to quantity recharge, and choosing the appropriate one, depending on the space/time scale is often very difficult (see the extensive review in Scanlon et al. 2002)).

L340, Why r is ranging from 1-5? Please justify.

L345-356, The application of the AHP process to quantitatively estimate the weight of each parameter is ABSOLUTELY UNCLEAR. Please provide much more explanation and details about it, so it can be replicated by the readers.

L358-449, In the contaminant hydrogeology literature, LNAPL and DNAPL very often refers to field-scale physical plumes (lighter and denser than groundwater, respectively). However, along the manuscript authors refer to LNAPL or DNAPL as a chemical property, detected in lab. During the site assessment, the authors detected an LNAPL/DNAPL plume, or it is referred only as a lab-scale measurement? Please clarify and discuss.

Table 4 and 6 are very hard to follow. It is impractical to report values that, in most of the cases, are below the analytical detection limit. Just provide a summary of the relevant results. This is not a consulting report.  

L463-476. These paragraphs are NOT results; are methods.

At the final part of the discussion, the authors should add 2-3 paragraphs about potential remediation strategies, that, in combination with the PRI map can improve the environmental management model of the site.

As a guideline, authors can refer and/or cite recent works of LNAPL and DNAPL remediation schemes. For instance, an LNAPL single/multi-well recovery approach (Hernández-Espriú, et al. 2012), or even chemical-based mobilization and micellar solubilization (Javanbakht, et al. 2016). In addition, some DNAPL remediation techniques include in-situ thermal remediation (Baker, et al. 2016).

 

References

Aller L, Lehr JH, Petty R (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system to evaluate groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. NWWA/US EPA Ser., EPA600/287035, US EPA, Washington, DC, 455 pp.

Baker, Ralph S., Steffen G. Nielsen, Gorm Heron, and Niels Ploug. "How effective is thermal remediation of DNAPL source zones in reducing groundwater concentrations?." Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 36, no. 1 (2016): 38-53.

Denny, S. C., D. M. Allen, and J. M. Journeay. "DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada." Hydrogeology Journal 15, no. 3 (2007): 483.

Hernández-Espriú, Antonio, Pedro Martínez-Santos, Emilio Sánchez-León, and Luis E. Marín. "Free-product plume distribution and recovery modeling prediction in a diesel-contaminated volcanic aquifer." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 37 (2012): 43-51.

Hernández-Espriú, Antonio, J. Antonio Reyna-Gutiérrez, Emilio Sánchez-León, Enrique Cabral-Cano, Jaime Carrera-Hernández, Pedro Martínez-Santos, Sergio Macías-Medrano, Giacomo Falorni, and Davide Colombo. "The DRASTIC-Sg model: an extension to the DRASTIC approach for mapping groundwater vulnerability in aquifers subject to differential land subsidence, with application to Mexico City." Hydrogeology Journal 22, no. 6 (2014): 1469-1485.

Javanbakht, Gina, and Lamia Goual. "Mobilization and micellar solubilization of NAPL contaminants in aquifer rocks." Journal of contaminant hydrology 185 (2016): 61-73.

Scanlon, Bridget R., Richard W. Healy, and Peter G. Cook. "Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge." Hydrogeology journal 10, no. 1 (2002): 18-39.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Editor

We thank the chief editor, journal editor, and reviewers for their helpful suggestions and critique. Based on the comments, we have completely revised the paper. The sections introduction, material, and methods, results, and discussion have been considerably reshaped and rewritten.Other parts have been revised. Additionally, the English language was improved. The revised and additional paragraphs marked in red color so that the reviewers can easily assess the revised work. Further, we chose to reply to every comment in detail in the following list with the specific revisions that were made.

Thank you again.

Best regards.

Nadhir Al-Ansari

Corresponding author

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Thus, the PRI map is an extended -DRASTIC vulnerability map, or is a risk map? There are important differences between vulnerability and risk. The authors should perfectly clarify these differences addition, if Eq. (1) is quite similar to DRASTIC, what is the novelty of the approach?

Response 1:

Thanks for this remark, L335, the PRI map is a weighted sum including seven hydrogeological parameters. In fact, except the lineament density (L) and the distant to pollutant sources (DS), Eq. (1) is essentially the popular DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987) approach for mapping groundwater vulnerability. In fact, recent DRASTIC approaches include structural characteristics (e.g. lineaments; subsidence-related tensile cracks), such as DRASTIC-Fm (Denny et al. 2007) or DRASTIC-Sg model (Hernández-Espriú, et al. 2014), respectively.

Some sentences have been added based on your comments. (from line 331-341 in red) in the manuscript.

Point 2: L334-335, what were the methods/techniques/approaches for estimating the seven variables? For instance, various techniques are available to quantity recharge, and choosing the appropriate one, depending on the space/time scale is often very difficult (see the extensive review in Scanlon et al. 2002).

Response 2:

Thanks for this remark, the methods/techniques/approaches for estimating the seven variables have been already mentioned, please see section 3.4.

Point 3: L340, why r is ranging from 1-5? Please justify

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out, r is ranging from 1-10 and not 1-5, the reason has been mentioned based on a specific reference, please see line 346 in red in the manuscript.

 

Point 4: L345-356, the application of the AHP process to quantitatively estimate the weight of each parameter is UBSOLUTELY UNCLEAR. Please provide much more explanation and details about it, so it can be replicated by the readers.

Response 4:

Thanks a lot for this comment, table 12 has been changed based on your comments, please see table 12.

Point 5: L358-449, in the contaminant hydrogeology literature, LNAPL and DNAPL very often refers to field-scale physical plumes (lighter and denser than groundwater, respectively). However, along the manuscript authors refer to LNAPL and DNAPL as a chemical property, detected in Lab. During the site assessment, the authors detected an LNAPL / DNAPL plume, or it is referred only as a lab-scale measurement? Please clarify and discuss.

Response 5:

Thanks a lot for this remark, yes exactly we noticed we noticed the pollution and plume from field investigation and the analysis as shown in Fig.1, also during the sampling when we pumped out the water, we noticed the thin film of petroleum product.

 

Point 6: Table 4 and 5 are very hard to follow. It is impractical to report values that in most of the cases are below the analytical detection limit. Just provide a summery of the relevant results. This is not a consulting report.

Response 6:

Thanks for this remark, the two tables have been modified and instead of detection limit we put (-) sign.

Point 7: L463-476, these paragraphs are NOT resulting, are methods

Response 7:

We are sorry for this; the section has been moved to the materials and methods.

Point 8: At the final part of the discussion, the authors should add 2-3 paragraphs about potential remediation strategies, that, in combination with the PRI map can improve the environmental management model of the site.

Response 8:

Some sentences have been added, please see lines 589-594 in red in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should double check the questions in last review process carefully and make sure all of them were taken care of properly.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1-Round 2

We thank the chief editor, journal editor, and reviewers for their helpful suggestions and critique. Based on the comments, we have completely revised the paper. The sections introduction, material, and methods, results, and discussion have been considerably reshaped and rewritten, other parts have been revised. Additionally, we proof the English language. The revised and additional paragraphs marked in red color so that the reviewers can easily assess the revised work. Further on, we chose to reply to every comment in detail in the following list with the specific revisions that were made.

Point 1: In general, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PHCs) is denoted as PAHs. Please check the whole text and make a correction.

 

Response 1:

We are sorry for this, this an erratum, the abbreviation is corrected in the whole text.

 

Point 2: In line 60, the first DNAPL should be changed to NAPL to fulfill the sentence.

 

Response 2:

Thanks for this remark, it changed to NAPL, please see line 60.

 

 Point 3:

 

In line 87, the authors indicate “the direction of pollution spread may be even opposite to the groundwater flow in special cases.” The authors need to provide key references or evidences to support this statement.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for this remark, a key reference is added, please see line (91).

 

Point 4: Fig 3 can't demonstrate the actual study area. The authors need to identify the study area in the geological formation map. Furthermore, the authors should provide the vertical structure of geological formation in the study area to identify possible aquifer locations and actual hydraulic movement directions.

Response 4:

Thanks for this remark, studied area drawn on figure 3 and a stratigraphic column is added to the manuscript as shown in Fig.4

Point 5:

 

The authors need to provide sampling depth information of each soil and groundwater sampling site. It is more important than the location information of each sampling site.

 

Response 5:

Thanks for this remark, table 1 is added for soil description and Table 4 which was 3 is modified and the depth is added.

Point 6: In line 327, an incomplete sentence.

 

Response 6:

Thanks for this, this sentence has been corrected. please see line 348

 

Point 7: The authors may also need to indicate the results of AHP assessment of each parameter for PRI index evaluation.

 

Response 7:

  Table 14 has been changed and the results of AHP assessment of each parameter for PRI index evaluation have been added. (section 3.4) in the manuscript.

 

Point 8:

 

Surface and subsurface soil samples locations in Table 1 do not match the results of LNPL concentration in soil samples in Table 6. The same question arises to Table 3 and Table 4.

 

Response 8:

Thanks a lot, and we are sorry. it was a technical issue we uploaded an old version, now you can see the modified tables and all data now is matched. Please compare table 2 with table 8 and table 3 with table 12, finally, table 4 with table 6 and 7. The samples below the detection limit has been mentioned as a comment for the purpose of shortening the length of the table.

 

 

Point 9: The authors didn't clearly indicate how to integrate all the analytical results to the construction processes of PRI map.

 

Response 9:

Thanks a lot, some paragraph has been added based on your comments. (please see sections 2.4, 2.5 and 3.4) in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

During this second round of review, I notice that the authors completely ignored several of my previous suggestions in the first round of review. Thus, the following observations need to be completed before final acceptance can be considered:

This manuscript has some gaps in terms of what are the main scientific contributions of this work. In its present form, it seems that the text is a consulting report rather than a scientific paper, and it is basically written for local readers, and not for a wider audience.  What was challenging in this study? Which outcome is transferable to other parts of the world with similar conditions? What is the main novelty? None of these is included in the current version. The authors need to do a much better job in addressing all these aspects including an improved state-of-the-art review, to point out the novelties in the case study, in relation to precedent methodologies. Therefore, a significant revision is needed before final publication with the focus on the discussion of scientific relevancies of the local case study for a wider readership.

Introduction Section: Provide a thoughtful state-of-the-art revision in relation to precedent methodologies dealing with polluted intensity risk maps, or analogous strategies. In addition, more scholarly citations are needed to briefly discuss the main challenges of LNAPL and DNAPL plumes in aquifers.

L181, ¿What is a “real” aquifer? ¿Is there a “virtual” aquifer, then?

L182 and others, Avoid using qualitative expressions, such as “excellent porosity” or “large quantity of water”. Instead refer to a quantitative term (e.g. a porosity of 20%).

L336, Why specifically the authors used an inverse distance weighted technique to delineate isocontours? Why not kriging or splines, or a different technique? Did they perform a geostatistical analysis? Justify. 

IMPORTANT: At the final part of the discussion, the authors should add 2-3 paragraphs about potential remediation strategies, that, in combination with the PRI map can: (1) reduce LNAPL and DNAPL concentrations until safe thresholds and (2) improve the environmental management model of the site.

As a guideline, authors can refer and/or cite recent works of LNAPL and DNAPL remediation schemes. For instance, an LNAPL single/multi-well recovery approach (Hernández-Espriú, et al. 2012), or even chemical-based mobilization and micellar solubilization (Javanbakht, et al. 2016). In addition, some DNAPL remediation techniques include in-situ thermal remediation (Baker, et al. 2016).

References

Baker, Ralph S., Steffen G. Nielsen, Gorm Heron, and Niels Ploug. "How effective is thermal remediation of DNAPL source zones in reducing groundwater concentrations?." Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 36, no. 1 (2016): 38-53.

Hernández-Espriú, Antonio, Pedro Martínez-Santos, Emilio Sánchez-León, and Luis E. Marín. "Free-product plume distribution and recovery modeling prediction in a diesel-contaminated volcanic aquifer." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 37 (2012): 43-51.

Javanbakht, Gina, and Lamia Goual. "Mobilization and micellar solubilization of NAPL contaminants in aquifer rocks." Journal of contaminant hydrology 185 (2016): 61-73.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2-Round2

We thank the chief editor, journal editor, and reviewers for their helpful suggestions and critique. Based on the comments, we have completely revised the paper. The sections introduction, material, and methods, results, and discussion have been considerably reshaped and rewritten, other parts have been revised. Additionally, we proof the English language. The revised and additional paragraphs marked in red color so that the reviewer can easily assess the revised work. Further on, we chose to reply to every comment in detail in the following list with the specific revisions that were made.

 

 

Major concerns

The manuscript is interesting; however, it has some gaps in terms of what are the main scientific contributions of this work. In its present form, it seems that the text is a consulting report rather a scientific paper, and it is basically written for local readers, and not for a wider audience. What was challenging in this study? Which outcome is transferable to other parts of the world with similar conditions? What is the main novelty? None of this is included in the current version. The authors need to do a much better job in addressing all these aspects including an improved state-of-the-art review, to point out the novelties in the case study, in relation to precedent methodologies. Therefore, a significant revision is needed before final publication with the focus on the discussion of scientific relevancies of the local case study for a wider readership.

Response

Thanks a lot for your remark, we would like to inform you that the Kurdistan region considered as a version area regarding the organic pollution in groundwater, and there is no legislation regarding the environmental issue. So, the work considered a case study and decision-makers and the community need to understand the risk of hydrocarbon disposal on human health and groundwater quality. This study is a unique one done in the area and Iraq, so we believe it is a novel study in the area. In addition, some sentences added in the introduction section please see line 132.

The manuscript can be divided into two major sections. The first one deals with a very routinely approach to analyze the pollution degree in soil and groundwater within a petroleum facility. From my point of view, there is nothing novel in this part. As presented, the soil and groundwater sampling appear to be a typical environmental site assessment, as performed by any consulting firm.

The second part, however, is scientifically more challenging /interesting, because is the one related to the polluted intensity map (PRI). This scheme is relatively unexamined in relation to the former, and thus, this part should be the focus of the manuscript. However, in its current form, the manuscript seems to be exactly the opposite way. The authors must carefully revise the English language. There are typo, grammatical errors and poorly written phrases throw-out the manuscript. I highly recommend that a native English-spoken can review the final version.

Response

Thanks a lot, yes we totally agree with you but as it mentioned in the work procedure, we have to know the areas which affected by hydrocarbon products, so we need sampling to implement the risk intensity map, as we mentioned in the previous response this is a unique study has been done in the area of interest and we added some sentences as well. Regarding the English language we improved some parts and corrected some grammatical errors.

Specific comments

L35 Introduction in accordance to suggestion (2) within the (major concerns) section, please provide a thoughtful state-of-the -art revision in relation to precedent methodologies dealing with polluted intensity risk maps or analogues strategies.

Response:

Thanks, some sentences have been added, please see line 100 in introduction section.

L57,63,71 and more. More scholarly citations are needed to briefly discuss the main challenges of LNAPL/ DNAPL plumes in aquifer.

Response:

Thanks a lot, some citations have been added.

L181. What is a real aquifer? Is there a virtual aquifer then?

Response:

Thanks, the real word changed to productive one, please see line 198

L181-186 and more. Avoid using qualitative expressions such as (excellent porosity) or (large quantity of water) instead refer to a quantitative term (e.g. a porosity of %20, %25…)

Response:

Thanks, we used these expressions due to lack of real data.

L326 Why specifically the authors used an inverse distance weighted technique to delineate is contours? Why not kriging or splines or other technique? Did they perform a geostatistical analysis? Please justify.

Response:

Thanks, it is clearly explained, please see line 348.

L329 The authors should not wait until L329 to explicitly describe and establish the main contribution of the manuscript which the polluted risk intensity map. State your contribution early in the manuscript.

Response:

Thanks for this remark, the objectives of this study are not just the risk intensity map as illustrate in Fig.5. Some sentences have been added early in the manuscript, please see line 100.

 

L335. The PRI map is a weighted sum including seven hydrogeological parameters in fact except the lineament density (L) and the distance to polluted sources (DS) EQ.1 is essentially the popular DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987) approach for mapping groundwater vulnerability, in fact recent DRASTIC approaches include structural characteristics (eg. Lineaments, subsidence, related tensile cracks) such as DRASTIC-Fm (Denny et al., 2007) or DRASTIC-Sg model (Hernandez-Espriu et al., 2014) respectively.

 

Thus, the PRI map is an extended -DRASTIC vulnerability map, or is a risk map? There are important differences between vulnerability and risk. The authors should perfectly clarify these differences addition, if Eq. (1) is quite similar to DRASTIC, what is the novelty of the approach?

Response:

Thanks, this has been explained, please see line 132 in introduction section and section 2.5 as well in the manuscript.

L334-335, what were the methods/techniques/approaches for estimating the seven variables? For instance, various techniques are available to quantity recharge, and choosing the appropriate one, depending on the space/time scale is often very difficult (see the extensive review in Scanlon et al. 2002).

Response:

Thanks for this remark, the methods/techniques/approaches for estimating the seven variables have been already mentioned and some paragraphs have been added as well, please see section 2.5 and 3.4.

L340, why r is ranging from 1-5? Please justify

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, r is ranging from 1-10 and not 1-5, the reason has been mentioned based on a specific reference, please see line 374 in red in the manuscript.

 

L345-356, the application of the AHP process to quantitatively estimate the weight of each parameter is UBSOLUTELY UNCLEAR. Please provide much more explanation and details about it, so it can be replicated by the readers.

Response:

Thanks a lot for this comment, table 14 has been changed based on your comments, please see table 14. And some paragraphs and equation have been added as well, please see section 2.5 in the manuscript from lines 387-434.

L358-449, in the contaminant hydrogeology literature, LNAPL and DNAPL very often refers to field-scale physical plumes (lighter and denser than groundwater, respectively). However, along the manuscript authors refer to LNAPL and DNAPL as a chemical property, detected in Lab. During the site assessment, the authors detected an LNAPL / DNAPL plume, or it is referred only as a lab-scale measurement? Please clarify and discuss.

Response5:

Thanks a lot for this remark, yes exactly we noticed we noticed the pollution and plume from field investigation and the analysis as shown in Fig.1, also during the sampling when we pumped out the water, we noticed the thin film of petroleum product, and this has been discussed.

 Table 4 and 5 are very hard to follow. It is impractical to report values that in most of the cases are below the analytical detection limit. Just provide a summery of the relevant results. This is not a consulting report.

Response 6:

Thanks for this remark, the two tables have been modified and instead of detection limit we put (-) sign.

L463-476, these paragraphs are NOT resulting, are methods

 Response:

We are sorry for this; the section has been moved to the materials and methods, please see section 2.5 in red in the manuscript.

At the final part of the discussion, the authors should add 2-3 paragraphs about potential remediation strategies, that, in combination with the PRI map can improve the environmental management model of the site.

Response:

Some sentences have been added, please see lines 655-660 in red in the manuscript.

As a guideline, authors can refer and/or cite recent works of LNAPL and DNAPL remediation schemes. For instance, an LNAPL single/multi-well recovery approach (Hemandez-Espriu et al.,2012) or even chemical-based mobilization and micellar solubilization (Javanbakht et al., 2016). In addition, some DNAPL remediation techniques include in-situ thermal remediation (Baker et.al, 2016)

Baker, R.S., Nielsen, S.G., Heron, G. and Ploug, N., 2016. How effective is thermal remediation of DNAPL source zones in reducing groundwater concentrations? Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 36(1), pp.38-53.

Hernández-Espriú, A., Martínez-Santos, P., Sánchez-León, E. and Marín, L.E., 2012. Free-product plume distribution and recovery modeling prediction in a diesel-contaminated volcanic aquifer. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 37, pp.43-51.

Denny, S.C., Allen, D.M. and Journeay, J.M., 2007. DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeology Journal, 15(3), p.483.

Aller, L., Lehr, J.H. and Petty, R., 1987. DRASTIC: a standardized system to evaluate ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. National water well Association Worthington, Ohio 43085. Truman Bennett. Bennett and Williams. Inc. Columbus, Ohio, 43229.

Response:

Thanks for your comment, some of these references have been added to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf