An Urban Water Pollution Model for Wuhu City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present study is important and has the scope and application, however the manuscript require substantial revision to appreciate the scientific quality.
The latitude and longitude of the study area should mention.
The details of the sample collection should be highlighted
The control experiments and detailed statistical analysis is not clear and it should be clearly discussed.
The discussion section should strengthen with recent references and latest studies.
The authors should highlight the potential limitations of the study.
Also, how the gap present in the literature is mitigated in the present study should be discussed,
The novelty and uniqueness of the present should be highlighted.
Author Response
The content of the manuscript has been revised, the details are in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors deal with the study of the temporal and spatial distribution of pollution loads for Wuhu City in China. The main claim of the authors deals with the fact that this method could contribute with the development of an adequate water pollution remediation methodology. I will recommend for publication after major revision. I think the main drawback of the article is related with their lack of novelty which is far from the aim of the journal. There are several recent research and review works in this area, which are not included.
There are some issues that would serve to improve the manuscript as mentioned below.
1.- I would suggest to improve introduction and conclusions. Authors must highlight the relevant works (within this topic) over the past 5 years. Authors must emphasize the recent literature regarding similar works and models used in different regions. The bibliography presented by the authors is very poor and not updated. The most recent reference is 2020.
2.- I would suggest to include a detailed table where authors could compare the precedent studies with their research. The novelty of the work must be highlighted. The main differences and advantages of using this methodology
3.- The legend of figures 7 and 8 are difficult to read (illegible) and make it very hard to understand. I would suggest to improve these figures. If authors want to compare the Source distribution of the annual pollution load, I would suggest to rethink these figures to be easier to understand.
4.- I would suggest to provide extra 1 or 2 self-made schematizations. For instance: i.- Time line regarding the mathematical models used so far. Ii.- a graphical schematization regarding their main results.
5.- The legend of figures 9, 10, 11, 12 are difficult to read (illegible) and make it very hard to understand. I really dislike these figures. I would suggest to rethink these figures to be easier to understand. Authors can move few of them to Supplementary Information?
- I disagree with the sentence used in the conclusions “The distribution of sources revealed that the domestic pollution and urban surface runoff pollution had a higher contribution to the local pollution load”. From these claims, seem that other anthropogenic activities such as industrial activities are not being considered.
7.- Conclusion need to be rewritten, to highlight their main findings
8.- Few English sentences are confusing. I will suggest to check/correct the whole manuscript by a native
Author Response
The content of the manuscript has been revised, the details are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is interesting and falls within the aim and scope of Water. Authors should provide successful Introduction Discussions sections and revise accordingly. The References list is very limited and additional references should be incorporated to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Additional comments are shown in the attached .pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The content of the manuscript has been revised, the details are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The background require update in terms of the recent aspects, the major lacuna of the literature and how the study mitigate the gap. How the present study provides new knowledge should be highlighted. The objectives should be clearly highlighted.
The methodology should be summarized in the form of a flow chart for easy understanding. It is only shown the model scale up map. Elaborate the same.
The control experiments are not clear. It should highlight with the test.
The discussion should strengthen with latest references and comparison should be made and high light the uniqueness of the study.
The potential limitations of the replicates and the study should be discussed.
The conclusion should provide the novelty of the present study.
The reference list should be updated with 2020-2021 references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I'm still concerned about the lack of an adequate bibliography.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have failed to address some of my initial comments. The authors should improve the Introduction section. Where is the discussion of the results? Additional references should be added to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Authors should rework the manuscript and provide a successful Discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns
Author Response
Point 1: The authors have addressed my concerns.
Response 1:
My co-authors and I genuinely appreciate the previous comments of reviewer 1. The comments and suggestions helped us improve the manuscript quality significantly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is improved in relation to its initial version. Authors should check the numbering of the references (page 34).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
