Integration of Water Quality Indices and Multivariate Modeling for Assessing Surface Water Quality in Qaroun Lake, Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject matter of the article - lake water quality in Egypt fits into the scope of the journal. The article is written correctly. It has a logical structure, clearly described the research area and methodology. However, the rules of the sampling campaign remain to be clarified. The authors combined several water quality indicators and statistical methods in an interesting way. The results are presented in a clearly structured manner. The bibliography contains relevant and up-to-date scientific articles.

Detailed comments: please use "0" not "nil" in the tables - e.g. table 6. Figure 6 and 7 - place goodness-of-fit measures on the graphs.  It is unclear how many times during 2018 and 2019 samples were taken. Does "n=16" mean a number of samples or sampling stations?

Author Response

14. August 2021

Dr. Jean-Luc PROBST

Editor-in-Chief

Water

Dear Dr. PROBST,

Please find attached the revised manuscript titled “Integration of water quality indices and multivariate modeling for assessing surface water quality in Qaroun Lake, Egypt” MS ID water-1315020, authored by Mohamed Gad, Magda M. Abou El-Safa, Mohamed Farouk, Hend Hussein, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Salah Elsayed, Moataz M. Khalifa, Farahat S. Moghanm, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Ali H. Saleh.

            We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers for our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.

Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 1´s comments:

• scope of the journal. The article is written correctly. It has a logical structure, clearly described the research area and methodology. However, the rules of the sampling campaign remain to be clarified. The authors combined several water quality indicators and statistical methods in an interesting way. The results are presented in a clearly structured manner. The bibliography contains relevant and up-to-date scientific articles.

• Response: We greatly appreciate your critical observations as well as your constructive and helpful comments. We hope that we could address your questions/comments by the explanations and revisions made in the manuscript. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested revisions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Detailed comments: please use "0" not "nil" in the tables - e.g. table 6.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We replaced nil by 0 according to your device.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Figure 6 and 7 - place goodness-of-fit measures on the graphs.

• Response: Thank you for your comment. The models criteria or goodness-of-fit measures of Figures 7 and 8 were added in Table 9 as well as we mentioned about that at the titles of figures 7 and 8.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• It is unclear how many times during 2018 and 2019 samples were taken. Does "n=16" mean a number of samples or sampling stations?

Response: We measured one time in July for each year. Thus, n = 16 means a number of samples.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the explanation given above adequately addresses the reviewers’ comment. I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Water.

Sincerely,

Ebrahem M. Eid

[Kafrelsheikh University]

[Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt]

[Phone number: 002010 22648840]

[Email address: [email protected]]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is neatly written, includes a discussion of the research findings, and a good review of the literature. I have only minor comments regarding the writing of the units     
- should be in SI system. Also, figure 2 and 3 are not very clear, which makes analysis difficult. 
Other than these minor comments the paper is clear and transparent. 

Author Response

14. August 2021

Dr. Jean-Luc PROBST

Editor-in-Chief

Water

Dear Dr. PROBST,

Please find attached the revised manuscript titled “Integration of water quality indices and multivariate modeling for assessing surface water quality in Qaroun Lake, Egypt” MS ID water-1315020, authored by Mohamed Gad, Magda M. Abou El-Safa, Mohamed Farouk, Hend Hussein, Ashwaq M. Alnemari, Salah Elsayed, Moataz M. Khalifa, Farahat S. Moghanm, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Ali H. Saleh.

            We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers for our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.

Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 2´s comments:

The paper is neatly written, includes a discussion of the research findings, and a good review of the literature.

• Response: We greatly appreciate your critical observations as well as your constructive and helpful comments. We hope that we could address your questions/comments by the explanations and revisions made in the manuscript. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested revisions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• I have only minor comments regarding the writing of the units     
  should be in SI system.

• Response: Thank you for your comment. All the units were modified according to SI system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Also, figures 2 and 3 are not very clear, which makes analysis difficult. 
  Other than these minor comments the paper is clear and transparent. 

• Response: Thank you for your comment. The Figures 2 and 3 were improved to be clear for the readers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the explanation given above adequately addresses the reviewers’ comment. I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Water.

Sincerely,

Ebrahem M. Eid

[Kafrelsheikh University]

[Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt]

[Phone number: 002010 22648840]

[Email address: [email protected]]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf