Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of Groundwater and Its Suitability for Domestic Uses in Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study evaluates the hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater in HBS (Iraq) and its suitability as drinking water. After conducting two sampling campaigns in dry and wet seasons, a GIS analysis was applied to analyze the spatial and seasonal distributions of water quality in the basin. Eventually, the properties of the groundwater was compared to a Water Quality index to assess their suitability for domestic use.

Overall:

The study delivered its goal: assess the water quality, investigate its spatial distribution and generate map of groundwater quality. However, the study shows some results which are relatively local. Not much to say about other areas and how the results can be applied to other research. No statistical techniques were applied despite being mentioned in the introduction part. Some questions related to the applied methodology, e.g. the calculation of the WQI, the uncertainty measurements, GIS analysis. The English needs to be improved and reformulated to ease the reading, especially in the abstract and introduction part. The authors are relatively reckless in writing the manuscript, e.g. different fonts, incorrect ways in referring to a citation, equations are sometimes in italic sometimes not, figures using different font sizes.

Major comments:

1. M&M

- The location of 39 samples should be shown in the map to see how representative they are.

- Which samples were sent to the laboratory of Health and Environmental Protection Office in Sulaimani? (line 194) How were the results of these samples compared to your results?

- Name of the standard methods? Lines 193 & 198.

- From which reference is the calculation of WQI for drinking water? The reviewer cannot find the reference 25 in table 4 as well as the weight and relative weight in table 3 from the reference 24. It’s very hard to believe the WQI for drinking water doesn’t include microbial content. This leads to a question about the reliability of this analysis.

- While there is a lack information of GIS analysis and piper diagram in M&M part, there is an unnecessary information of Uncertainty measurement (1 page long), in which two measurements related precision and accuracy were mentioned but never appeared after that. What are the purposes of these measurements in this study?

- The part study area and hydrogeological setting should be in the M&M.

2. Results and Discussion

- This section should be organized more logically. While the results of the two sampling events can be shown first in table 5. From that, the piper diagram can be calculated. After that the maps showing spatial distribution of TDS and TH can be shown. Eventually the WQI can be calculated to show how the water quality can be suitable for drinking water use.

- this section is descriptive. The discussion part is limited. The authors should add more discussion about the results of the study. Explain more why the water quality was like the obtained results. Why there were differences between two seasons and different locations.

- the legends (a, b, c, d, …) in the Figures 5 and 6, which can be combined, should be explained.

- some units in table 5 are mg/I. this table doesn’t show the distribution of the value of the parameters. Box plots should be use instead.

- The maps are not well drawn. The numbers on the axes are not completed. The scale and text size are different between figures 7 and 8 and figure 9. The legend study basin with white blank doesn’t represent anything.

To sum up, before the authors explain more about the methodology of the study, the results of the study remain questionable. As such further revision will be supplied after that. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments and recommendations. Regarding to the paper, we did great modifications and language corrections.

Regarding to your comment (all correction based on your comments highlighted in my paper with green color)

Regarding to overall comments:

·        This study provide some idea to how the results can be applied to other research, see (Line 74).

·        All applied methods been mentioned in introduction part and M&M, see line (42, 51 and 68).

·        English language has been enhanced.

·        Writing of manuscript has been enhanced in terms of font, italic and figures.

Regarding to major comments M&M:

1.     Figure (5) added to show the location of 39 samples.

2.     Regarding to line 94 is removed based on the comment of second reviewer.

3.     Name of standard method written (Line 178 and 182).

4.     Rerence (25) is corrected and reference 24 is available online, WHO guide for drinking in 2006.

5.     Required information regarding GIS has been written (line 245).

6.     One method of Uncertainty measurement removed.

7.     Study area and hydrogeology parts moved to M&M.

Regarding to major comments Results and discussion:

1.     The order of this result has been re-arranged based on your recommended order.

2.     Some paragraph added to discussion part and your question were answered.(Line 323).

3.     Legend (a, b, c, d, e, f and g) removed from figure (5 and 6) because they're not required.

4.     Table 5 remain the same because some parameter has not any unit, so I prefer to remain table (5) instead of Box plots.

5.     All map have been enhanced.

6.     All required parameters were explained in the M&M.

With my great regards,

Corresponding Author  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 General comment:

The manuscript describes a large and interesting monitoring work of groundwaters in Iraq. Although the work can be useful for those interested in water quality in Iraq and in how to monitor water resources, the bad quality of some parts of the text makes the current version of the work unfit for publication. Some sentences are incomplete, and parts of the text are in wrong sections. Therefore, I suggest authors to invest some time in the text to highlight the merits of the study. It was detected some technical mistakes that must also be corrected.

Specific comments (line : comment):

22: What does the “real” mean in this context?

29-32: The English of this sentence must be improved;

38-40: Incomplete sentence in poor English;

138: According to the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) (https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html) the term accuracy reflects the impact of both systematic and random effects on the measurement. Please change “accuracy” for “trueness” that reflects systematic effects.

143-145: The specified precision conditions (there are different precision conditions; please check the VIM) are repeatability conditions. These conditions are not the most useful for uncertainty evaluations.

Equation 1: This equation is mentioned as allowing the evaluation of random and systematic effects (line 153). It can only be used to check precision. Please correct the text;

152: It looks this line defines maximum values for the CV but the text is not clear.

153-157: Please make this sentence clear. It looks it is describes the experimental tests used to estimate the CV.

Equation 2: This equation is wrong since both the numerator and denominator are zero. Where are the anions concentrations? Ideally, the charge balance should be performed by taking measurements uncertainty into account.

172-179: This text is in a wrong place.

244-249: Text in the wrong place; I think!

Comment: The determination of the WQI is interesting and a strong part of this work.

Many other details are difficult to follow, probability due to the poor quality of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments and recommendations. Regarding to our paper, we did great modifications and language corrections.

Regarding to your comment (all correction based on your comments highlighted in my paper with yellow color)

Regarding to general comments:

·        English language has been enhanced.

·        Writing of manuscript has been enhanced.

·        Order of sentences re-arranged.

·        Technical mistakes have been solved.

Regarding to specific comments:

All comments have been corrected as follow:

1.     Word of real changed into major, see line 23.

2.     The English of line 29-32 corrected, see lines 28-32.

3.     The English of line 38-40 corrected, see lines 38-41.

4.     The term accuracy changed to trueness.

5.     The precision condition to check uncertainty removed from this paper.

6.     Equation (1) removed, because it was included with precision condition.

7.     Line 152 removed, because it was included with precision condition.

8.     Line 153-157 removed, because it was included with precision condition.

9.     Equation (2) was incorrect; it was corrected and changed to equation (1).

10. Line 172-179 moved to line159.

11. 244-249 moved to 197.  

With my great regards,

Corresponding Author 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall:

The responses of the authors are sufficient in terms of details. Several questions were raised during the first review round but were ignored by the authors. For example:

Which samples were sent to the laboratory of Health and Environmental Protection Office in Sulaimani? (line 194) How were the results of these samples compared to your results?

- While there is a lack information of GIS analysis and piper diagram in M&M part, there is an unnecessary information of Uncertainty measurement (1 page long), in which two measurements related precision and accuracy were mentioned but never appeared after that. What are the purposes of these measurements in this study?

These questions were answered very briefly with the removal of the questioning parts, hence, don’t deliver the real explanation.

The responses of the authors don’t include the modifications themselves. Furthermore, the revised manuscript didn’t use track changes (as a requirement). Although the authors highlighted the changes with green color, this still makes the reviewer very difficult to follow the modifications.

As long as the authors don’t change the ways to response properly to the feedback from the reviewer, I cannot give much feedback for the second round.

Some other comments:

I don’t see “some idea to how the results can be applied to other research” in line 74. Moreover, this further research should be placed in discussion and conclusions part not the introductory part.

Still some parts of equations are in italic while some are not.

Figure 5 is added but the figure should be placed immediately below the paragraph referred it

Writing still needs to be improved, e.g. ( Figure 5)

One of the limitations of WQI usage in this study, only in terms of chemical quality of drinking-water while omitting microbial quality, needs to be indicated.

The way the authors referring to a reference with the name is not correct, e.g. by the [22]  or by the [23].

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments and recommendations. Regarding to my paper, I did some great modifications and language corrections.

Regarding to your comment (all correction based on your comments highlighted in my paper with yellow color)

Regarding to your comments:

Your comment (Which samples were sent to the laboratory of Health and Environmental Protection Office in Sulaimani? (line 194) How were the results of these samples compared to your results? required), I would like to explain that this comment was related to one method for measuring uncertainty for chemical analysis based on random error , and this method been removed based on comments of other reviwer.So if the method been removed how can I reply you. 

Some details for GIS been added (Please see line252-257) and some details been added as well regarding to Piper Diagram (Please see line184-188).One applied of uncertainty measurement already been removed.The purpose of applying uncertainty measurement been stated (Please see line 172).

All your comments from previous review and this review have been replied properly.

I already added a paragraph regarding to how the results can be applied to other searchers. And this sentences moved to conclusion section, (Please see line 363).

Italic property been removed from all equation parts and highlighted with yellow color.

Figure 5 been enhanced and moved to the place immediately below the

Paragraph referred it (Please see line 200).

As I explained previously, WQI in this study designed based on physiochemical properties of groundwater, and microbiological process does not active in my study area, so it would be better to neglect it.

The referencing like (by the [22] and by the [23]) been modified based on your comments.   

With my great regards,

Corresponding Author  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I my opinion, the text continues to be difficult to follow in many parts. I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form.

Title: Please, do not use acronyms in the title. Try to reduce title size.

Lines 45, 70: Present acronyms in their first appearance.

Lines 138-139: This sentence is incomplete.

Line 158-165: I cannot follow this text but I am not a native English speaker;

Line 255: Two “essential” in the same sentence;

Table 5: Results are reported with too many significant figures. The measurement uncertainty is useful to decide how to report results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments and recommendations. Regarding to my paper, I did some great modifications and language corrections. All correction based on your comments highlighted with green color.

Regarding to your comments:

The title been enhanced, acronyms in the title been removed, please see line 1.

1. (Lines 45, 70: Present acronyms in their first appearance.). These lines been modified, please see line 46.

(Lines 138-139: This sentence is incomplete.). This sentence is completed and modified; please see line 152-155.

(Line 158-165: I cannot follow this text but I am not a native English speaker ;) This paragraph completely been modified. Please see lines 177-184.

(Line 255: Two “essential” in the same sentence ;) This sentences completely been modified. Please see lines 265-266.

With my great regards,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

All suggested specific changes were considered.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Some more details about the theoretical background of the applied method are required.
2. Figure 7, use the same color for both seasons to see the seasonal variation.
3. Line 396 (The results of both confirm the accuracy) what do you mean by the result of both. Please clarify.
4. Write some more about the variation of water quality from dry to wet season.

Reviewer 2 Report

-

Reviewer 3 Report

This is interesting and informative. The aim of the paper is clearly stated, but the quality of English is not satisfactory and it must be improved.

General comments

Please proofread the manuscript before submitting to avoid any unexpected typos or grammatical errors

Please be consistent with using the sub/superscripts in the manuscript

Please check the references list and include missing information

Specific comments

Consider changing the title as 'Hydrogeochemical evaluation of groundwater and its appropriateness for domestic use in Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq using WQI'

 L 19, suggest using 'Halabja Saidsadiq Basin' instead of Halabja Saidsadiq Hydrogeological Basin

L 21 please avoid starting the sentence with a number. 

L 21-24 rephrase for clarity

L 24, avoid references in the abstract e.g WHO 2006

L 24 expand WHO

L 28, avoid using abbreviations in the abstract, especially when it is used only once. eg. WQI, WHO

L 28, what do the authors mean by tests, is it the sampling locations?

Keyword, what do the author mean by domestic water. Is it water used for domestic use?

Avoid abbreviation in keywords, remove HSB

Introduction section should be improved. the readers could not understand what the 'studied basin' means. The authors should explain the water issues in Iraq and why the HSB basin is of specific interest. 

L52-54, the authors mention 'based on the available ionic data'. Do the authors mean secondary data collected by the authors? Nevertheless, the objective should be rephrased for clarity.

L 56, the acronym HSB should be introduced here.

L 56, coordinates should be given in degrees, minutes and seconds.

L61, the temperature should be clearly mentioned instead of hot and cold.

L63, delete the sub-section heading

L 64, 69 references should be properly cited

L76, Title of table 1 can be changed to Aquifer in the HSB

L 90, how was TDS and TH measured. Were they calculated?

L 97 mention the month and year of sample collection that corresponds to the dry and wet season 

Table 3 parameters should be represented by the proper symbols. 

Table 3 what does Iraqi and international standard(WHO) mean. Does that mean based on both standards?

L 155, modify the sentence for clarity

L 158, both seasons

L160, abbreviations should be expanded at the first mention and used consistently thereafter

L200, remove the sub-section title

The sequence of the manuscript could be improved. I suggest the WQI can be moved to the last section as it is a cumulative representation of the groundwater quality in a sample location.

There is very little in the discussion or conclusions that would put the results of this study in a broader context.

A valid discussion which integrates the current study with the peer-reviewed literature is required to ensure it is of wider applicability.

Further information about the manuscript's topics can be found in the following references. Suggest to use these references in the discussion

Rajesh et al. DOI 10.1007/s12403-015-0166-6

Brindha and Kavitha DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3793-5

DOI 10.1007/s13201-013-0138-6

DOI 10.1007/s12403-016-0224-8