Next Article in Journal
Granulation of Drinking Water Treatment Residues: Recent Advances and Prospects
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling Daily and Monthly Water Quality Indicators in a Canal Using a Hybrid Wavelet-Based Support Vector Regression Structure
Previous Article in Journal
Using a PIV Measurement System to Study the Occurrence of Bursting in the Flow Over a Movable Scour Hole Downstream of a Groundsill
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/w12051398
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

WASP 8: The Next Generation in the 50-year Evolution of USEPA’s Water Quality Model

Water 2020, 12(5), 1398; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051398
by Tim Wool 1,*, Robert B. Ambrose, Jr. 2, James L. Martin 3 and Alex Comer 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(5), 1398; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051398
Submission received: 31 March 2020 / Revised: 28 April 2020 / Accepted: 7 May 2020 / Published: 14 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water-Quality Modeling)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
I only have small suggestions for your manuscript. Mostly recommendations are related to figures that are not introduced in the text body and abbreviations in which the meaning is repeated or absent.

The authors should refer to more international papers to trigger curiosity for non-North American users. The QGIS chapter should also have some aspects that could interest non-US users. As it is, it seems just focus on EPA.
Please, take into consideration the pdf file in the attachment where authors can see all notes. They are all over the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the comments and very thorough review.  This review was very helpful and we think very much improved the paper. I believe we addressed all of the comments and suggestions.

  • I believe we addressed all of the editorial comments (adding references to figures, etc), including correcting figures and equations where noted.
  • We added references where noted they were missing
  • We added international examples of WASP applications references and modified the section on QGIS
  • We added a section on future development.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors give a review of the development of the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) in the paper. The review goes across a 50 years evolution of the program from the 1970s to nowadays. The reactive mass transport problems play a central role in the model. Over the years, the model has aided various engineering applications. I am glad to read such a paper and only have minor revision comments.

  1. I am curious that if the numerical methods applied to solve the mass transport equations in the WASP also evolves over the years. For instance, are there any high order schemes or flux limiters applied during the development of the program? If there is, it would be interesting to know by many readers.
  2. Following the previous comment regarding the numerical aspect: How are the reaction terms treated in the code? Is an operator splitting scheme applied in the numerical discretization or a global implicit method is used?
  3. Even though the paper aims at reviewing the historical evolution of the WASP, it would be interesting for the readers to know a bit about the future development of the program. I think it will help to improve the paper by extending the last section to an outlook on the code development.

Author Response

Thanks for the review comments; they were very helpful. We added several sections to the report on the evolution of the numerical methods discussion on what we presently use. We also added a section on future development.

Back to TopTop