Hydrological Modelling and Evaluation of Detention Ponds to Improve Urban Drainage System and Water Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general:
The paper is interesting, but it can be improved.
Overall, the English language needs to be reviewed by a mother-tongue: some sentences are incomprehensible and the “phrase construction” is bad.
Many data are taken for granted: the Authors talk about land use, soil characteristics, slopes, Curve Number, but there is not a geological, pedological, land use maps….
There are many misprints.
The References is not accurate.
In particular:
Line 33 = In the sentence “According to….” the verb is missing
Line 37 = replace “Bai, Zhao and Zeng, 2019” with “Bai et al, 2019”
Line 39 = “approach to” not “of”
Line 45 = “it” without capital letter
Line 54 = insert a space after “period”
Line 54 = replace “Brandão, Costa, Alves, 2019” with “ Brandão et al, 2019”
Line 54 = replace “Salisbuy” with “Salisbury”
Line 76 = “receinvig”? I think “receiving”
Line 87 = It is necessary to insert a geological map and a land use map of the study area.
Line 97 = Delete space before “OTT”
Line 99-100 = Event Mean Concentration
Line 101 = Total Dissolved Solids
Line 101 = Total Suspended Solids
Lines 101-102 = Chemical Oxygen Demand
Line 111 = replace “Liu et al, 2007” with “Liu and Gupta, 2007”
Line 114 = “Sharma et al, 2012” is “Sharma et al, 2011” in the references
Line 115 = Efficiency
Line 133 = Replace “precipitation” with “rainfall”
Line 133 = Replace “use of the land’s area” with "land use of the area"
Line 143 = Insert a pedological map of the area
Line 147-148 = The sentence is incomplete
Lines 156-157 = Intensity-Duration-Frequency
Line 166 = After formula insert “where:”
Line 166 = Replace “precipitation” with “rainfall”
Line 168 = Replace “equipaments” with “equipment”
Line 172 = After formula insert “where:”
Line 172 = After “y” insert “=”
Line 174 = Insert the maps!
Line 185 = After number and before “m” insert a space
Line 187 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Line 188 = After number and before “m” insert a space
Line 189 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Line 200 = Idem as above
Line 211 = Move "the common characteristics" before "were identified"
Line 218 = Insert the maps!
Lines 218-219 = I don’t understand the sentence,,,
Line 224 = Caption of Figure 4: what are the red lines?
Line 228 = Describe in detail the results of sensitivity analysis
Line 234 = Replace “To measure” with “In order to measure”
Line 236 = Replace “Santhiet et. al.” with "Santhi et al."
Line 237 = Delete point after “et”
Line 241 = Figure 5: Comments? The simulated flow is very high with respect to the observed flow…
Line 242 = Show the gallery 1 and others in Figure 6
Line 243 = Replace “;” with a comma
Lines 252-254 = The sentence is not clear…
Line 262 = In the caption of Figure 7 insert a space after the first point
Line 273 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Line 277 = behavior or behaviour? Choose one of this in all the text
Line 287 = Replace “dimensioning” with "size"
Lines 301-302 = The sentence is incomplete
Line 301 = What’s “diffet”? Perhaps “different”?
Line 308 = At the end of line, delete “of the”
Line 342- (References) = In general: the references are to be written in alphabetical order. Furthermore: the double initial of name are to be written without space between the first and the second capital letter; the division of the author is “;”, without “end” or “&” before the last author.
Others in particular:
Line 361 = delete “(2016)” (it is in the end of citation)
Line 372 = delete “(2016)” and move it at the end of citation
Line 382 = replace “Liu, Yuqiong, and Hoshin V. Gupta” with "Liu, Y.; Gupta H.V."
Line 386 = “2011” in the text is “2012”
Line 391 = delete “p.”
Line 392 = delete “(2017)” (it is in the end of citation)
Line 408 = delete one point after “W.A.”
Line 410 = insert a space before “Vol.”
Line 413 = delete “(1997).” (it is in the end of citation)
Author Response
Good Afternoon,
our responses:
Reviewer 1
An extensive editing of English language and style was done.
Introduction – ok!
Research design – ok!
methods adequately described
results clearly presented
conclusions supported by the results
In general:
The paper was improved.
The English language was reviewed by specialists.
Data about study area characterization were added.
We hope that any misprints happened again – we corrected them.
The References were corrected too.
In particular:
All errors were corrected.
Line 33 = In the sentence “According to….” the verb is missing
The verb was added
Line 37 = replace “Bai, Zhao and Zeng, 2019” with “Bai et al, 2019”
Ok!
Line 39 = “approach to” not “of”
Ok!
Line 45 = “it” without capital letter
Ok!
Line 54 = insert a space after “period”
Ok!
Line 54 = replace “Brandão, Costa, Alves, 2019” with “ Brandão et al, 2019”
Ok!
Line 54 = replace “Salisbuy” with “Salisbury”
Ok!
Line 76 = “receinvig”? I think “receiving”
Yes, we changed.
Line 87 = It is necessary to insert a geological map and a land use map of
the study area.
Ok! It was inserted the pedologhy and land use map. The information about geology was written.
Line 97 = Delete space before “OTT”
Ok!
Line 99-100 = Event Mean Concentration
Ok!
Line 101 = Total Dissolved Solids
Ok!
Line 101 = Total Suspended Solids
Ok!
Lines 101-102 = Chemical Oxygen Demand
Ok!
Line 111 = replace “Liu et al, 2007” with “Liu and Gupta, 2007”
Ok!
Line 114 = “Sharma et al, 2012” is “Sharma et al, 2011” in the references
The correct form is 2011.
Line 115 = Efficiency
Ok!
Line 133 = Replace “precipitation” with “rainfall”
Ok!
Line 133 = Replace “use of the land’s area” with "land use of the area"
Ok!
Line 143 = Insert a pedological map of the area
Ok!
Line 147-148 = The sentence is incomplete
Ok!
Lines 156-157 = Intensity-Duration-Frequency
Ok!
Line 166 = After formula insert “where:”
Ok!
Line 166 = Replace “precipitation” with “rainfall”
Ok!
Line 168 = Replace “equipaments” with “equipment”
Ok!
Line 172 = After formula insert “where:”
Ok!
Line 172 = After “y” insert “=”
Ok!
Line 174 = Insert the maps!
Ok!
Line 185 = After number and before “m” insert a space
Ok!
Line 187 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Macro-gallery was adopted in all paper.
Line 188 = After number and before “m” insert a space
Ok!
Line 189 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Ok!
Line 200 = Idem as above
Ok!
Line 211 = Move "the common characteristics" before "were identified"
Ok!
Line 218 = Insert the maps!
Ok!
Lines 218-219 = I don’t understand the sentence
Ok!
Line 224 = Caption of Figure 4: what are the red lines?
It was explained into the subtitle.
Line 228 = Describe in detail the results of sensitivity analysis
Ok!
Line 234 = Replace “To measure” with “In order to measure”
Ok!
Line 236 = Replace “Santhiet et. al.” with "Santhi et al."
Ok!
Line 237 = Delete point after “et”
Ok!
Line 241 = Figure 5: Comments? The simulated flow is very high with respect to the observed flow…
Ok!
Line 242 = Show the gallery 1 and others in Figure 6
Ok!
Line 243 = Replace “;” with a comma
Ok!
Lines 252-254 = The sentence is not clear…
Ok!
Line 262 = In the caption of Figure 7 insert a space after the first point
Ok!
Line 273 = You before always wrote “macro-gallery”
Ok!
Line 277 = behavior or behaviour? Choose one of this in all the text
Ok! Behavior!
Line 287 = Replace “dimensioning” with "size"
Ok!
Lines 301-302 = The sentence is incomplete
Ok!
Line 301 = What’s “diffet”? Perhaps “different”?
Yes, it was corrected.
Line 308 = At the end of line, delete “of the”
Ok!
Line 342- (References) = In general: the references are to be written in alphabetical order. Furthermore: the double initial of name are to be written without space between the first and the second capital letter; the division of the author is “;”, without “end” or “&” before the last author.
It was followed the examples at other publication at Water.
But the others errors were corrected.
Others in particular:
Line 361 = delete “(2016)” (it is in the end of citation)
Ok!
Line 372 = delete “(2016)” and move it at the end of citation
Ok!
Line 382 = replace “Liu, Yuqiong, and Hoshin V.
Ok!
Gupta” with "Liu, Y.; Gupta H.V."
Ok!
Line 386 = “2011” in the text is “2012”
Ok!
Line 391 = delete “p.
Ok!
Line 392 = delete “(2017)” (it is in the end of citation)
Ok!
Line 408 = delete one point after “W.A.”
Ok!
Line 410 = insert a space before “Vol.”
Ok!
Line 413 = delete “(1997).” (it is in the end of citation)
Ok!
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, a good study. The paper itself needs further spelling/grammar and english editing. Some minor changes around the placement of text (methods/results).
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Overall, I found it to be an interesting study with some important outcomes. Some minor notes below.
The introduction was quite good, however the language will need to be improved. For example Lines 32-35 need to be better structured in order to make sense. The literature that has been cited is relevant and recent, which is good. It might be worth expanding the discussion in Line 63 (among other computational hydrological methods - what are they??).
Your methods section is fairly well written and some minor changes would improve this section. Line 75 does not make sense - please review the language. The description of the various areas/basins that you are utilising is good and provides enough information for the reader to establish the importance. Line 110 - can you describe calibration? It might be worthwhile including a flowchart for your methods to clearly show the timeline of events.Your use of tables helps the reader to understand the parameters used.
The result section seems to contain some further method discussion - this should be moved to the previous section (e.g. Lines 226 - 238). Overall, the results are well presented and highlight the main areas discussed in the methods. Some language improvements are needed in this section also.
The conclusions support the paper well, however some language editing is required. Lines 323 - 328). Some further discussion of any limitations to this study would be beneficial.
I would recommend that a professional english language editor be used for the paper.
Author Response
Introduction
We tried to improve the language in the introduction.
Lines 32-35
We rewrite this part.
Line 63 (among other computational hydrological methods - what are they??
It was added more information about it.
Line 75 does not make sense
We rewrite this part.
Line 110 - can you describe calibration - including a flowchart
It was added more information about it.
I would recommend that a professional english language editor be used for the paper.
We used this service. Thank you for the recommendation.
Reviewer 3 Report
See my comment on the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Introduction
Research design
methods adequately described
results clearly presented
conclusions supported by the results
We tried to improve all the stages into the manuscript.
Comments on the paper:
SWMM
It was added a definition
Allocated in the downstream –
It was confused, we rewrite this part
Promove
Promote
Lids
It was added a definition.
Study Area -
ok! It was added information about rainfall, temperature, geologhy and soils.
Uncertainties and Calibration
It was added more information about it.
Rain 1 to Rain 7
They are all the rain distribution used in this model in order to evaluated the ponds proprosed.
the slope map and the land use map
It was added the maps.
sensitivity analysis
It was added more information about it.
These figures are not clear
The figures were changed for other with better quality
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved.
I noticed only two typos:
- in the caption of fig. 2, after "2" a point has to be deleted
- in the caption of fig. 7, "desdign" has to be replaced with "design"
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you for all contributions! It was very important to improve our article.
Point 1: in the caption of fig. 2, after "2" a point has to be deleted
Response 1: ok!
Point 2: in the caption of fig. 7, "desdign" has to be replaced with "design"
Response 1: ok!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have considered almost all raised comments by the reviewers. The manuscript is in better shape and seems publishable.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for all contributions! It was very important to improve our article.
