Microbiological and Physicochemical Quality of Groundwater and Risk Factors for Its Pollution in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper, titled 'Microbiological and Physicochemical Quality of Groundwater in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,' delves into an analysis of urban groundwater quality in Ouagadougou using microbiological and physicochemical assessments. Here are the suggested revisions and improvements for the article:

1. **Title**: Revise and improve the title of the article.

2. **Abstract**: Strengthen the abstract by including additional relevant methods and techniques (e.g., IDW) to better explain the state of urban groundwater quality in Ouagadougou and its spatial distribution for decision-makers.

3. **Introduction**: Rewrite and expand the introduction, incorporating recent references to provide a comprehensive overview of the research context.

4. **Paragraph Titles**: Ensure that paragraph titles follow the Water Journal Template.

5. **Figures**: Include figures that describe the study area and sampling points.

6. **Tables**: Create tables for drilling coordinates, describe the methods used, and include parameter standards according to WHO and Burkina Faso.

7. **Parameter Results Table**: Include a table displaying the parameter results.

8. **Discussion**:

   - Provide references for claims made in the discussion.

   - Compare the results of this study with other relevant studies in the same area and elsewhere that share similar conditions (e.g., anthropogenic activities, pedological, and climatic factors).

9. **Conclusion**:

   - Enhance the conclusion section.

   - Include additional recommendations, such as measures for disinfection in borehole water treatment.

10. **References**: Ensure that references adhere to the Water Journal Template and include digital object identifiers (DOIs) for all references where available.

By addressing these points, the article can be improved to meet the standards expected for publication in the Water Journal.

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. **Title**: Revise and improve the title of the article.

The title has been revised and improved.

2. **Abstract**: Strengthen the abstract by including additional relevant methods and techniques (e.g., IDW) to better explain the state of urban groundwater quality in Ouagadougou and its spatial distribution for decision-makers.

Strengthening the abstract by including additional methods and techniques and explaining the results would make it longer than the permitted word count of 200 words. However, the recommendation has been taken into account by adding a map of the area and the boreholes studied in the results section.

3. **Introduction**: Rewrite and expand the introduction, incorporating recent references to provide a comprehensive overview of the research context

The introduction has been rewritten and expanded incorporating recent references to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research context.

4. **Paragraph Titles**: Ensure that paragraph titles follow the Water Journal Template.

Paragraph titles now follow the Water Journal Template.

5. **Figures**: Include figures that describe the study area and sampling points

Figure 1 that describes the study area and sampling points has been included.

6. **Tables**: Create tables for drilling coordinates, describe the methods used, and include parameter standards according to WHO and Burkina Faso.

Figure 1 addresses these queries, and the parameter standards according to WHO and Burkina Faso are given in Table 2 in the main text and Table S1 in the supplementary file.

7. **Parameter Results Table**: Include a table displaying the parameter results.

Table S1 displaying parameter results has been included as a supplementary file.

8. **Discussion**:

   - Provide references for claims made in the discussion.

   - Compare the results of this study with other relevant studies in the same area and elsewhere that share similar conditions (e.g., anthropogenic activities, pedological, and climatic factors).

The discussion has been revised.

9. **Conclusion**:

   - Enhance the conclusion section.

   - Include additional recommendations, such as measures for disinfection in borehole water treatment.

The conclusion section has been revised and additional recommendations have been included.

10. **References**: Ensure that references adhere to the Water Journal Template and include digital object identifiers (DOIs) for all references where available.

The references adhere to the Water Journal Template and we have included available digital object identifiers (DOIs).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

The English language has been refined by the native speaker Dr. Johannes Cairns.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors studied the microbiological and physicochemical quality of groundwater in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Overall, the manuscript has a concrete structure, with presentable results and discussions. However, there are a few comments to be addressed.

1.     Abstract: Include a line or two about the novelty and the research gap that you are addressing. Also, why there are two titles? 

2.     Introduction section: 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. 

3. Study area: Provide a geographical map in this study. Include the sampling points location.

4. Do not use the term like "we" in this study. Try to avoid that.

5. Provide a flow chart about the research to ease the readers.

6. Table 2 cannot be understood in this way. You need to illustrate it using some GIS tool.

7. Table 6 should be presented using a heat map. Do not just use table like this.

8. Discussion section: Not many in-depth comparisons were done. I would suggest the authors compare the findings with existing literature. Unique contributions of research should be highlighted.

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

10. Some relevant studies which can improve the discussion of the manuscript are missing in the study:

(a) Comparison among different ASEAN water quality indices for the assessment of the spatial variation of surface water quality in the Selangor river basin, Malaysia

(b) Application of artificial intelligence methods for monsoonal river classification in Selangor river basin, Malaysia

11.     Conclusion section seems to be a repetition of the results section. Huge modifications are required. Please make sure your ‘conclusion’ section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, and limitations, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this section.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Abstract: Include a line or two about the novelty and the research gap that you are addressing. Also, why there are two titles?

We have made small changes in the first and last sentences of the abstract to indicate the novelty of the work. The running title has been deleted.

2. Introduction section: 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.

The research gap, the research objectives and the novelty of the research have been presented more clearly in the revised introduction.

3. Study area: Provide a geographical map in this study. Include the sampling points location.

A geographical map showing sampling point locations has been added (Figure 1).

4. Do not use the term like "we" in this study. Try to avoid that.

The active tense has been replaced by the passive tense throughout the text.

5. Provide a flow chart about the research to ease the readers.

We have rewritten some of the text to clarify the research procedure. However, since the other reviewers did not suggest a flow chart, we did not add it to keep the article at reasonable length.

6. Table 2 cannot be understood in this way. You need to illustrate it using some GIS tool.

Table 2 has been replaced by Figure 1 which is more illustrative.

7. Table 6 should be presented using a heat map. Do not just use table like this.

This is a good suggestion, but we decided to move Table 6 to the supplementary fine (Table S4)

8. Discussion section: Not many in-depth comparisons were done. I would suggest the authors compare the findings with existing literature. Unique contributions of research should be highlighted.

The discussion has been improved.

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

The implications are now presented in the conclusions.

10. Some relevant studies which can improve the discussion of the manuscript are missing in the study:

We have added some relevant studies (references 16, 29, 41).

11. Conclusion section seems to be a repetition of the results section. Huge modifications are required. Please make sure your ‘conclusion’ section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, and limitations, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this section.

The conclusion section has been modified following the suggestions. Some of the mentioned items (limitations and future study perspectives) have been added into the end of the discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Thanks for your interesting manuscript which could be amliorate by providing more figures (localization maps, map of risk scores obtained or calcualted, maps of the most impacted or risky boreholes etc.) I consider that minor revisions are needed to be published in Water and get interest for scientific and stakeholders community. In the revised mansucript you ll find all suggestions and remarks that you can consider.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The manuscript has been improved by taking into account most of the recommendations by Reviewer 3. The major changes include:

 - A map showing sampling points has been added (Figure 1)

- Table 2 in the previous version of the text has been replaced by Figure 1

- We really appreciate the reference by Villanueva et al. and will utilize it in our future studies

- Several tables (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6) have been transferred to the supplementa material (as Table S2, Table S3 and Table S4, respectively).

The minor changes have been highlighted with yellow in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is ok for my side. 

It is ok!

Author Response

The reviewer was satisfied during the second submission and minor editing of english language has been done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to authors:

The authors did not really try to address the comments raised in the first review. Not much revision was done. Here I am requesting the authors to address the comments more critically.

(i) Abstract: The authors did not improve the abstract. Include a setence or two to highlight the research novelty. Do not start the abstract with the sentence" This sentence..."

(ii) Introduction: the research gaps have been improved, but not for the research objectives.

(iii) Methodological section: Include the methodological flow chart.

(iv) Some relevant studies which can improve the discussion of the manuscript are missing in the study:

(a) Comparison among different ASEAN water quality indices for the assessment of the spatial variation of surface water quality in the Selangor river basin, Malaysia

(b) Application of artificial intelligence methods for monsoonal river classification in Selangor river basin, Malaysia

(v) Many times the full form for DWB was provided. Please check through the whole text.

(vi) Where is the implications section???

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors:

The authors did not really try to address the comments raised in the first review. Not much revision was done. Here I am requesting the authors to address the comments more critically.

• Abstract: The authors did not improve the abstract. Include a setence or two to highlight the research novelty. Do not start the abstract with the sentence" This sentence..."

The abstract has been further edited according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Introduction: the research gaps have been improved, but not for the research objectives.

The objectives have been formulated more clearly.

(iii)       Methodological section: Include the methodological flow chart.

A flow chart has been added (Figure 1)

(iv)       Some relevant studies which can improve the discussion of the manuscript are missing in the study:

(a)        Comparison among different ASEAN water quality indices for the assessment of the spatial variation of surface water quality in the Selangor river basin, Malaysia

(b)       Application of artificial intelligence methods for monsoonal river classification in Selangor river basin, Malaysia

These studies and two references discussing the assessment of groundwaters have been added, as well as one recent study from Burkina Faso and elsewhere (references 7, 42, 50 and 51)

(v)        Many times the full form for DWB was provided. Please check through the whole text.

We have checked the text for consistency and readability.

(vi)       Where is the implications section???

 This section has now been added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

The language has been thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker and the previous revision was already extensively polished. We would require detailed comments on the remaining language issues in question in order to address them.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to authors:
The authors have substantially addressed my comments.
The current version reads better and ready for publication.

Minor editing of English language required