δ³⁴S, δ¹⁸O, and δ²H-δ¹⁸O as an Approach for Settling the Question of Groundwater Salinization in Neogene Basins: The North of Morocco in Focus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents new data on dissolved sulphates and minerals in Morocco. The manuscript is basically well written and of sure interest to water journal readers. However, some citations on the Messinian and Triassic values used as a reference in the literature are missing.

I therefore suggest to take as a reference the works cited, as well as the other comments, in the attached pdf. In particular, the figure 6 seems to have a processes not well described: the equal line 18O-SO4 = 18-H2O (slope 1) is from Van Stempwoort and Krouse 1994 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-1994-0550.ch029) and represent the lower limit during oxidation of sulfide in water, and not from atmospheric oxygen (many other kinds of oxidation processes are mentioned in that work, despite this it was not cited). Anyway, if the authors need to show mixingm I suggest to draw an additional figure 6b diagram, with variables Cl/SO4 (or Cl/SO4) and d34S. In this regard, take a look to this works: Fig. 7 in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292700000524?via=ihub and/or Fig. 6.26 in https://scope.dge.carnegiescience.edu/SCOPE_43/SCOPE_43.html


Hope this helps

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titledδ34S, δ18O and δ2H-δ18O as an approach for settling the question of groundwater salinization in Neogene basins: North of Morocco in focus to Water. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper.

We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the Reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript presents new data on dissolved sulphates and minerals in Morocco. The manuscript is basically well written and of sure interest to water journal readers. However, some citations on the Messinian and Triassic values used as a reference in the literature are missing. I therefore suggest to take as a reference the works cited, as well as the other comments, in the attached pdf. In particular, the figure 6 seems to have a processes not well described: the equal line 18O-SO4 = 18-H2O (slope 1) is from Van Stempwoort and Krouse 1994 (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-1994-0550.ch029) and represent the lower limit during oxidation of sulfide in water, and not from atmospheric oxygen (many other kinds of oxidation processes are mentioned in that work, despite this it was not cited). Anyway, if the authors need to show mixingm I suggest to draw an additional figure 6b diagram, with variables Cl/SO4 (or Cl/SO4) and d34S. In this regard, take a look to this works: Fig. 7 in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292700000524?via=ihub and/or Fig. 6.26 in https://scope.dge.carnegiescience.edu/SCOPE_43/SCOPE_43.html

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments, the manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “34S, 18O and D-18O as an approach for settling the question of 2 groundwater salinization in Neogene basins: North of Morocco 3 in focus. “

In this manuscript, the authors presented an interesting interpretation of the data on underground waters and the origin of their salinity. This is especially important in these times of climate change and global warming and increased needs for drinking water. However, the international context of the work is sufficiently justified and some more comparison with global values will be welcome. Also, some parts of the text should be corrected.

I had some additional comments and suggestions which should not be so difficult to address. Also, they probably should give some additional information for readers.

General comments:

The geological part is too long for this type of work and too detailed. I think it should be significantly shortened and more references should be used, since these are data from references anyway.

Detailed comments are as follows:

Keywords:

-          Authors should remove “Messinian Salinity Crisis” because they don't actually deal with it in this manuscript.

Regional geology and Local geology and hydrogeology should be shortened.

The authors provided geological maps, but did not show the sampling map so that readers cannot relate it. A map of all sampling stations is essential for any interpretation.

The authors also wrote that the samples were from wells and rivers, but did not describe them at all. This should be changed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titledδ34S, δ18O and δ2H-δ18O as an approach for settling the question of groundwater salinization in Neogene basins: North of Morocco in focusto Water. We appreciate the timeand effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback onour manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper.

We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by theReviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Review of “34S, 18O and D-18O as an approach for settling the question of 2 groundwater salinization in Neogene basins: North of Morocco 3 in focus. “

In this manuscript, the authors presented an interesting interpretation of the data on underground waters and the origin of their salinity. This is especially important in these times of climate change and global warming and increased needs for drinking water. However, the international context of the work is sufficiently justified and some more comparison with global values will be welcome. Also, some parts of the text should be corrected.

I had some additional comments and suggestions which should not be so difficult to address. Also, they probably should give some additional information for readers.

General comments:

The geological part is too long for this type of work and too detailed. I think it should be significantly shortened and more references should be used, since these are data from references anyway.

Detailed comments are as follows:

Keywords:

-          Authors should remove “Messinian Salinity Crisis” because they don't actually deal with it in this manuscript.

Regional geology and Local geology and hydrogeology should be shortened.

The authors provided geological maps but did not show the sampling map so that readers cannot relate it. A map of all sampling stations is essential for any interpretation.

The authors also wrote that the samples were from wells and rivers but did not describe them at all. This should be changed.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments, the manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions.

Except that, for the location of the sample points, we can't plot them on the maps presented, because they are on a large scale. However, we have cited the articles that present the location of these samples

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors' response and revisions have satisfactorily addressed my comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors satisfactorily answered all the questions and, accordingly, modified the manuscript so that they believe it can be published.