Evaluation of Fresh Groundwater Lens Volume and Its Possible Use in Nauru Island
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Good article deals with the proper management of fresh groundwater lenses in Nauru islands using 3D and 2D models. I really enjoyed reading this article, however, I have some major comments.
Figure 1 is not clear at all; you have to indicate the longitudes and latitudes of the Nauru island site location.
In the introduction section, cite this article as it has been used the SEAWAT model for managing a thing lens of freshwater floating over a deep saline.
Groundwater recharge and salinization in the arid coastal plain aquifer of the Wadi Watir delta, Sinai, Egypt. Applied Geochemistry. Volume 71, August 2016, Pages 48-62.
Indicate the location sites of the monitoring wells in Nauru in Figure 1.
In Figure 2, the legend is not clear, divide it into two columns instead of one. It is available in the Excel. Also, in figure 2c the legend over the x-axis.
In section 2.1. (Hydraulic tests) You should mention the methods has been used for interpretation of pumping and slug tests in your methodology.
In section 2.2. Geo-electrical investigation, you should mention the instrumental model (i.e SAS 1000, IRIS …….. etc.) used for geoelectrical survey (ERT) and software used for interpreting your data.
In Section 2.3. 3D numerical model implementation, you should mention the model that has been used (ie SEAWAT). And a brief description about the model.
Scale is not clear in figure 4.
In figure 7, indicate the meaning of CH, is it constant head only or constant head combined with constant concentration?
Good matching between the modeled concentration and the observed one. However, I did not sea any calibration using the groundwater level also. I fully agree you can use concentration only, however if you have the measured and observed head it will be more evidence about the accuracy of the model simulation. If you do not have head data, concentration is enough.
Regards
Author Response
Please see the file attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper deals with the presentation and analysis of the freshwater in Nauru island.
The topic is beneficial and exciting to read. I want to recommend this paper as a technical note and resubmit it in corrected form. The manuscript has no scientific contributions, which is my decision's fundamental argument. Also, the authors should provide hydrogeological profiles of the aquifer. Provided research has been done in a correct technical procedure and rules of the profession.Author Response
Please see the file attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I reviewed the article with the ID= water-1930462. The article topic is intriguing and promising in the area. Overall, the article structure and content are suitable for the WATER journal. I am pleased to send you major-level comments that need to be corrected before publication. Please consider these suggestions as listed below.
· The title seems good, but the abstract seems also fine but pease add one more introductory line of your objective at beginning of the abstract. Highlight the core finding.
· Keywords are ok
· Research gap should be delivered in a clearer way with the directed necessity for future research work.
· Introduction section must be written in a more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed. Please target the specific gap.
· The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings, and highlight novelty.
· Line 30 Page 1 need a reference. Please cite- Role of nanomaterials in the treatment of wastewater: a review.
· What is the main challenge? Please highlight this in the introduction part.
· The main objective of the work must be written in the clearer and more concise way at the end of the introduction section.
· Please provide space between numbers and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs in several spots in the paper.
· Please check the abbreviations of words throughout the article. All should be consistent.
Please add material section in methodology part to state all chemicals with specification.
· Regarding the replications, the authors confirmed that replications of the experiment were carried out. However, these results are not shown in the manuscript, how many replicates were carried out by experiment? Please, clarify whether the results of this document are from a single experiment or from an average resulting from replications. If replicated were carried out, the use of average data is required as well as the standard deviation in the results and figures shown throughout the manuscript. In the case of showing only one replicate explain why only one is shown and include the standard deviations.
· Please add a comparative profile section to compare your results.
· Section 5 should be renamed by Conclusion and Future perspectives. The conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantifying the main research findings, and highlighting the relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect.
· To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, moderate level English language should be thoroughly checked. Please revise your paper accordingly since several language issues occur in several spots in the paper.
· Reference formatting needs careful revision. All must be consistent in one formate. Please follow the journal guidelines.
Author Response
Please see the file attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been greatly enhanced and I accept publishing this article as the author(s) fit the comments that has been provided in the previous review report.
Reviewer 2 Report
Even after drastic corrections to the paper, I still believe that the manuscript is on the level of a professional paper. The presented materials do not have any scientific contribution. As a matter of fact, such analysis could be seen in many professionals' elaborates and projects that deal with the analysis of the water resources in a particular area. The statement ''we found water, not in the middle of the island, but on edge does not give something new from the scientific point of view.
I am sorry that, again, I must propose to reject the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted in the present form
