Evaluation of Drinking Water Quality and Treatment from Coolers in Public Places in Madinah City, Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion this paper is an interesting study and authors have assessed the quality of drinking water from coolers in Madinah public places using physicochemical analysis and bacteriological parameters to provide clean, safe and healthy drinking water for general public. Because water environment protections are one of the most important problems, it is necessary to find new methods and techniques to monitor point sources of pollution in drinking water.

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to the journal of Water. Its topic is very interesting. However, the current version of the paper suffers from a number of weaknesses related to the empirical strategy used. I have the following comments/questions for the authors:

Abstract

·         Line 10: Include a line or two about the novelty and the research gap that you are addressing as a first paragraph before the aim of the study.

·     The abstract could be more specific. I suggest the authors should organize the abstract as well as main text in four sections, namely: scope, objectives, methods, results, conclusions. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

·         What are the practical implications of your research (how can the results be utilized by e.g., readers, community)?

·         The authors ought to re-write the abstract so that it briefly presents the problem at hand, objectives of the study, methods used to achieve the objectives in logical order. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study.

Introduction

·         The research gap and the research objectives were not clear in the submission. A clear list of previous studies should be provided to clearly identify the research gap in the research and also highlight the novelty of the research.

·         Add some recent article to make your introduction more attractive and stronger. I propose to add this survey method in the overview section of the introduction section, based on the latest literature. Please replace old citations (if it is possible) or add citations of newest literature.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152311

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030483

·         The authors should formulate hypothesises and add to the end of the section introduction.

 Methodology (Please change the title from Experimental Procedure to Methodology)

Study area

·         Describe all the features of the study area in brief including climate, temperature, and evaporation?

·        Would you please give more information about the population in the studied area?

·         Line 143: Please add the north direction, longitudes, latitudes, and more information about the places of collected samples in Figure 1. In addition, please add a legend for Figure 1 to clarify all details in the figure.

 Collection of water coolers samples

·         Lines 145 to 146: Please give more information about samples collection, preservation for physicochemical and bacteriological analysis?

·         Sampling locations were selected carefully within the studied area to have a good representation of the spatial variability of quality indicators across-section of water quality monitoring. What criteria were analyzed to select these locations?

·         Lines 160 to 167: Please give detailed information on water samples analysis (e.g., accuracy, manufacturer).

·         Please provide detailed detection methods and quality control results?

·         How did you do quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) on the obtained data to validate the conclusions?

Results and discussions

·         You should think how transformational the research is likely to be should be made so that the outcome of the work will have an impact on the community/society facing given sustainability related challenges?

·         Please support your results and discussion section with more relevant references.

·         Write the practical applications of your work in a separate section, before the conclusions and provide your good perspectives.

·         What long-term impacts will it have on environmental protection and the wider public or the field following the completion of the research?

·         Implications: The authors must develop a subsection for theoretical and practical implications. Implications could be enhanced by providing the results of your work towards the development and adoption of the current findings.

Conclusion

·         Huge modifications are required. Please make sure your ‘conclusions’ section underscores the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations; underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results.

·         Concise the text in conclusion and add future work in order to recommend your work in this section.

Please respond to all of those comments in the revised manuscript by pointing out precisely and concisely on which page and in which line you have incorporated your response one by one.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This research paper describes the study on evaluating drinking water quality from coolers in public places in Madinah city of Saudi Arabia.

 

The paper should be revised for the following.

 

1.        The authors are highly recommended to revise the paper for the English language.

2.        The authors should elaborate on section 2.3. “Methodology”. The authors should describe in detail various methods especially the titration method to evaluate the total hardness and ion measurement.

3.        Why authors added Figure 3? The authors should only describe the method they used to study the presence of bacteria in their present research. It is a research paper. It is not a review paper to add various details in the reference of literature that is not directly or indirectly related to the research study.

4.        Why authors added to section 4. “Advantages and disadvantages of desalination techniques”. It is a research paper. It is not a review paper to describe a literature survey. The authors should mention their own results and findings if they have evaluated various desalination techniques in their present study based on collected data. Otherwise, the authors are suggested to remove this section.

5.        The authors should give reference to important papers suggesting the treatment of water to improve its quality. Such as

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152406

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010171

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper requires extensive editing for the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to the journal of Water. Its topic is very interesting. I have the following comments for the authors:

Study area

·         Line 143: Please add longitudes and latitudes of the studied area on the boundaries of Figure 1. In addition, please add a legend for Figure 1 to clarify all details in the figure.

 Methodology

·        Line 252: Please delete the section title (Methodology)  

Conclusion

·         Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations; underscore the scientific value added of your paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is better than the previously submitted one but still it requires revision for the following.

1. Still English editing is required for the manuscript.

2. The authors should revise the manuscripts for subscripts and superscripts.

3. The details in section 4 related to desalination should be moved to the introduction section as these are not the authors` research work.

 

 

Extensive English editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made all the necessary improvements. Well done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf