Water Abundance Evaluation of Aquifer Using GA-SVR-BP: A Case Study in the Hongliulin Coal Mine, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article studies the evaluation of the water abundance of coal seam roof aquifers, providing a new approach for the evaluation of water abundance, especially in areas lacking hydrological holes. It is of great significance for safe coal mining, groundwater resource protection, and sustainable development. This article has great scientific value. I have carefully read the research materials and made several comments that may help improve the quality of the article. More details:

 

1. Reliability verification of methods

This article combines BP and SVR to evaluate the water abundance of aquifers, and the evaluation results are acceptable. But there is a lack of comparative analysis of the predicted results of unit water inflow. Is GA-SVR-BP better than the predicted results of BP or SVR alone? Recommended using mathematical statistics to compare the prediction results of GA-SVR-BP with individual BP or SVR, which can more quantitatively demonstrate the reliability of GA-SVR-BP.

 

2. Materials and Methods

The article only provides a general introduction to genetic algorithm (GA), which is brief. However, the parameter settings for BP and SVR optimization in GA are not the same. Recommended adding a detailed description of the optimization process for readers to better understand.

 

3. Results

There is no relevant description of the hidden layer and target error settings of the BP neural network in the Results, which is unclear. It is only a description of the optimization of parameters C and g in the SVR model. Recommended adding a description of the BP neural network settings.

 

4. Abstract

Recommended adding "Especially for the evaluation of water abundance in mining areas where hydrological holes are lacking, it is of great significance" after "It can be seen that this evaluation model has certain applicability for evaluating the water abundance of coal seam roof."

 

5. Tables 1 and 2 should be placed in their proper positions.

 

6. There are some writing errors in the article. Recommended checking and making corrections. For instance, p3:9 “complete ly”should “completely”

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article title: Water Abundance Evaluation of Aquifer Using GA-SVR-BP: A 2 Case Study in the Hongliulin Coal Mine,China

Review report:

The reciprocal variance method was used to predict the measured unit water inflow. Finally, according to the "Detailed Rules for Coal Mine Water Prevention and Control", the water abundance of aquifers was classified to verify the accuracy of the model and partition the water abundance of the study area. The results indicate that out of 37 borehole data, weak water abundance and 15 medium water abundance were evaluated correctly, verifying their applicability.

This work is publishable in the journal after addressing following issues. 

I recommend to start introduction with main objectives of the study. 

Based on the findings, I recommend to write the policy implications in the abstract.

Empirical results of the study should have to write in the abstract.  

At start of introduction, I recommend to add main hook of the topic with addition of given studies as (1-4) “Consumption of fossil fuels causes environmental emissions, and climate change (1-4). In particularly, coal accounts for more than 56% of China's primary energy consumption (it is predicted that coal will still account for about 50% of the total consumption of primary energy by 2030), and will still dominate for a long time in the future”.

(1)Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan

(2)Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture.

(3)Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions at farm level: case study of grain and cash crops

(4)Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers

I suggest to add main research questions and methods were used to address those research questions in the introduction. 

What are the main contributions of the article? I recommend to add in the revised article. 

I recommend to add structure of article at the end of introduction section. It helps to explain the purpose of each section. 

I suggest to add the framework of the study in the revised article. 

I think, it is better to combine the section of results and discussion, and in the discussion please compare each finding with previous research papers. 

The study limitations and policy implication must have to write after the conclusion section. 

I recommend to add separate sections for the Conclusion, Policy Implications, and Limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

Research that fits well the scope of either MDPI-Water, or the special issue. However, several detail is missing, and I am available to review the manuscript a second time under request of the editors. All the specific comments need to be addressed before publication.

 

 

Specific comments

Lines 23-24. “22 weak water abundance and 15 medium water 23 abundance”. Unclear, please revise

Lines 50-55. Sentence too long. Please, split in two parts

Lines 57-58. “Many scholars have conducted research on the evaluation of aquifer water abundance, mainly including on-site pumping test method”. Add recent literature on evaluation of aquifer properties using pumping tests:

1. Medici, G. and West, L.J., 2023. Reply to discussion on ‘Review of groundwater flow and contaminant transport modelling approaches for the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer, UK; insights from analogous successions worldwide’ by Medici and West (QJEGH, 55, qjegh2021-176). Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 56(1), qjegh2022-097, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2022-097

2. Streetly, M., Chakrabarty, C. and McLeod, R., 2000. Interpretation of pumping tests in the Sherwood Sandstone Group, Sellafield, Cumbria, UK. Quarterly Journal of engineering geology and hydrogeology, 33(4), pp.281-299.

Line 111. Clearly state the specific objectives of your research by using numbers (e.g., i, ii, and iii).

Lines 126-126. Specify the lithologies of the aquifer units (sanstone with clays?). The information of Figure 2 needs to be also present in the text.

Line 141. Just “method”. Delete the world “introduction”

Lines 275-294. Add more detail on the description of the results. Description of figures 3 to 7 needs at least three more sentences.

Line 297. Change “discussion” into “conclusion”

Line 337. Add to the bibliography the two (1., and 2.) relevant publications suggested above on pumping tests on sandstones

 

 

Figures and tables

Figure 2. Add a vertical scale bar to the hydrastratigraphic column

Figures 3 to 7. Make the figures larger

Moderate edits are required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No further questions.