Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have gone through carefully the content and would like to inform that the paper represents the scientific level. The conclusions are resulted from research presented in the paper and the discussion is completed. However, some items need to be completed. Some specific comments are as follows:

• Introduction: The authors analyzed the progress and problem of previous researches, however please provide more examples (papers). Additionally, please emphasize on works recently done (not older than 5-6 years) e.g. Groundwater Contamination by Organic Compounds: A Case Study of Lubna Landfill Site in Warsaw, Poland. Koda E., Sieczka A., Miszkowska A., Osinski P. Environmental Geotechnology (EGRWSE 2018), 2019; Ground water quality near municipal solid waste dumping site at Thirupperumthurai, Batticaloa Sugirtharan, M.; Rajendran, M. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2015 etc.

What is a hypothesis in research?

• Materials and methods: Figure 1 is not professionally prepared. What the blue dots mean? Wells? City ​​names are illegible. L78 vs L101- Figure vs Fig.? – please correct. Figure 2- what does “1, 2, 3, 4” means? L112. Regional piezometrical survey- there is no information how long or how many times a study of the regional piezometer was carried out. In my opinion it should be explained and added. L151. “To check the consistency of the self-potential measurements in the landscape, concomitant measurements of the redox potential (Eh), pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the water were carried out.”- how did you test this parameters? Please explain the methods or add the using standards etc.
• Results and discussion: The discussion is not well conducted. It should be based on studies recently done…
• Conclusions: The conclusions are supported by the analysis of the data presented.
• References: As a general rule, it is better to use the references too often than not enough. In my opinion, the references should be completed. Please add more relevant literature.

 

Author Response

Please find below in the attached file the modifications based on your suggestions . We would like to thank you for your  constructive evaluation.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim the manuscript “water-1146549” is to map the presence of a pollution plume from a landfill located near the city of Rabat (Morocco) by using a multidisciplinary approach which includes geophysical, physic-chemical and geomorphological considerations.  

The topic of the manuscript is interesting but it appears not very clear to the reader and sometimes rough. Thus some changes are need to make it self-consistent.

 

I believe the manuscript should be published only after major revision.

 

 

Comments (P = page#/R = row#):

 

P1/ 63

Specify the acronym “SP” when it first appear in the text and after, use it.

 

P2/70

Add generally information about the water quality and the possible  negative effects on environment and human health caused by contamination of this source. Refer to other cases in the world.

The authors can take inspiration from the following works:

 

Fuoco, I., Figoli, A., Criscuoli, A., Brozzo, G., De Rosa, R., Gabriele, B., & Apollaro, C. (2020). Geochemical modeling of chromium release in natural waters and treatment by RO/NF membrane processes. Chemosphere, 254, 126696.

 

Figoli, A., Fuoco, I., Apollaro, C., Chabane, M., Mancuso, R., Gabriele, B., ... & Criscuoli, A. (2020). Arsenic-contaminated groundwaters remediation by nanofiltration. Separation and Purification Technology, 238, 116461.

 

Tazioli, A. (2011) Landfill investigation using tritium and isotopes as pollution tracers. Acquae Mundi, 89-92.

 

Cozzarelli I.M., Böhlke J.K., Masoner J., Breit G.N., Lorah M.M., Tuttle M.L.W., Jaeschke J.B. (2011) Biogeochemical evolution of a landfill leachate plume, Norman, Oklahoma. Groundwater, 49(5), 663-687.

 

P3/2

The Figure 1 is not clear. Redraw it. Please add a legend, a scale bar and a North direction.

 

P3/101

Cite the figures using the same format in all the text: Figure X or Fig.X

 

P4/110

The Figure 2 not appear as a geomorphological map. Moreover, a lithological/geological map is missing.

Please redraw this image adding also a lithological/geological map and discuss it. The use of a DTM could be useful to the reader to well-understand the morphology of the studied area

 

P6/172

The Figure 3 is not clear. Please add a legend, a scale bar and a North direction. If possible, overlap the lithological/geological map

 

 

 

P6/173

In the section “Physico-chemical parameters” the discussion about the water quality is missing. Add information about water quality and its use in the studied area. The use of contaminated waters could cause negative effects on environment and human health. Are there these evidences in the studied area??

 

 

P6/176

Why the leachates have a lower conductivity than groundwaters?

Chemical analysis are available to well-discuss and provide also a chemical interpretation?

 

 

P6/185

The Figure 4 is not clear. Please add a legend, a scale bar and a North direction. If possible, overlap the lithological/geological map

 

 

P7/205

The Figure 5 is not clear. Please add a legend, a scale bar and a North direction. Add the number near each transects to make clearer the discussions. If possible, overlap the lithological/geological map

 

 

P8/220

“Finally, the low humus in the soils and the associated low biological activity favor high

oxygen content in the groundwater”.

This sentence is based on field observations or on previous scientific data ? If it is based on previous scientific data, add references.

 

 

P8/255-258

 

Chemical analysis attesting the presence of high amount of dissolved organic carbon were conducted? Please report these information in the text.

 

 

P8/207 The discussions should be redone, taking into account the previous comments.

 

P8/235 Based on acquired data, is it possible track the contours of pollutant plume?

 

P9/272 The conclusion should be redone, taking into account the previous comments

 

P9/298 Add the following works in the references list:

 

Fuoco, I., Figoli, A., Criscuoli, A., Brozzo, G., De Rosa, R., Gabriele, B., & Apollaro, C. (2020). Geochemical modeling of chromium release in natural waters and treatment by RO/NF membrane processes. Chemosphere, 254, 126696.

 

Figoli, A., Fuoco, I., Apollaro, C., Chabane, M., Mancuso, R., Gabriele, B., ... & Criscuoli, A. (2020). Arsenic-contaminated groundwaters remediation by nanofiltration. Separation and Purification Technology, 238, 116461.

 

Tazioli, A. (2011) Landfill investigation using tritium and isotopes as pollution tracers. Acquae Mundi, 89-92.

 

Cozzarelli I.M., Böhlke J.K., Masoner J., Breit G.N., Lorah M.M., Tuttle M.L.W., Jaeschke J.B. (2011) Biogeochemical evolution of a landfill leachate plume, Norman, Oklahoma. Groundwater, 49(5), 663-687.

 

 

NOTE: English should be reviewed by a native speaker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find below in the attached file the modifications based on your suggestions . We would like to thank you for your constructive evaluation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in present form