Evaluation of the Gamma Law for Settling Velocity and Trapping Capacity Analysis of Suspended Particles in a Dam Reservoir (Lobo River in Côte d’Ivoire)
, Martin Sanchez 2, Zilé Alex Kouadio 1, Michal Habel 3, Jules Sekedoua Kouadio 4, Kouamé Olivier Jean Kouadio 1, Dibi Brou 1 and Kouakou Lazare Kouassi 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I revised the original manuscript entitled ‘Evaluation of the Gamma law for settling velocity and trapping capacity analysis of suspended particles on dam reservoir (Lobo River in Côte d'Ivoire)’
In my opinion, the manuscript is potentially interesting, however, some crucial parts of the manuscript should be improved in order to be accepted in this journal.
In particular:
Keywords: please uniform with ; or ,
Row 50-51, please re-write. The point is that the grain size as well as the mineralogical compositions of the discharged particles is unknow.
Row 52-53. Is not written in English.
Row 59. Replace here and along the manuscript m3 with m3 etc.
Row 67 ‘It is a method that involves using a sedimentation rate tube, a quasi-in-situ technique ’ Which method??
Row 101: What means the term ‘impoundment’? I suggest replacing it. Do you mean catchment?
Chapter Study area. I suggest to re-elaborate the study area trying to avoid copy/past from other your publications. I understand that the characteristics of the study area are unchanging in time, however, several phrases are exactly copied e.g. ‘Two-dimensional Numerical Simulation of Suspended Sediment Transport in Lobo Reservoir (Western-central of Côte D’ivoire)’ a paper that I can found on the internet. Please re-elaborate the sentences.
Chapter study area: What about the lithological and geomorphological conditions of the catchment? Which are the grain size and the mineralogical composition of drained sediments? Which are the observable sources of sediments? In my opinion, if you want to understand the relation between sediment characteristics in a basin context you must report the geo-lithological characteristics and pedological condition of your basin.
Fig. 1 Please specify with more detail in the figure caption the elements presents in the figure.
Chapter 2.2.1. Please in English
Row 145. Please specify how SSC and QL have been calculated or measured. More detail please.
Row 151. Delete double space.
Row 152. Capital letter. Please in general be more accurate in the style here and along the manuscript.
Row 194: ‘quiescent waters conditions’. In my opinion quiescent is not the right term, please replace it.
Row 195. Please specify where the samples were taken. Is it possible or show a map? or report the point in fig. 1?
Row 228. Quiescent is a term that usually was referred to landslides..I suggest to try to have a look some references are adopted or not. If adopted please specify the meaning.
For all these reasons, I suggest a MAJOR revision to this manuscript.
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We want to thank the anonymous Reviewer for his helpful and constructive comments. Thanks to him, the paper improved significantly.
Please find our comments and answers to all your comments.
Best regards
Bérenger KOFFI
Point 1. Keywords: please uniform with ; or
Response 1. The keywords have been uniformed.
Point 2. Row 50-51, please re-write. The point is that the grain size as well as the mineralogical compositions of the discharged particles is unknow
Response 2. This sentence has been rewritten. Line 49-50
Point 3. Row 59. Replace here and along the manuscript m3 with m3 etc.
Response 3. This error has been taken into account throughout the manuscript. (m3)
Point 4. Row 67 ‘It is a method that involves using a sedimentation rate tube, a quasi-in-situ technique ’ Which method??
Response 4. This is the Owen tube method (1976). It is an original method that consists of using a decantation tube.
Point 5. Row 101: What means the term ‘impoundment’? I suggest replacing it. Do you mean catchment?
Response 5. This is a presentation of the lobo river reservoir. I have replaced by "Lobo river reservoir".
Point 6. Chapter Study area. I suggest to re-elaborate the study area trying to avoid copy/past from other your publications. I understand that the characteristics of the study area are unchanging in time, however, several phrases are exactly copied e.g. ‘Two-dimensional Numerical Simulation of Suspended Sediment Transport in Lobo Reservoir (Western-central of Côte D’ivoire)’ a paper that I can found on the internet. Please re-elaborate the sentences.
Response 6. The presentation of the study area has been changed. The sentences have been changed.
Point 7. Chapter study area: What about the lithological and geomorphological conditions of the catchment? Which are the grain size and the mineralogical composition of drained sediments? Which are the observable sources of sediments? In my opinion, if you want to understand the relation between sediment characteristics in a basin context you must report the geo-lithological characteristics and pedological condition of your basin.
Response 7. The geology and pedology of the Lobo River catchment are presented from line 116-120
Point 8. Fig. 1 Please specify with more detail in the figure caption the elements presents in the figure
Response 8. The details in Figure 1 were made as follows: Figure 1. Location of the research area. (a) Lobo River basin against the map of the Côte d’Ivoire map. (b) Lobo river basin at Nibéhibé. (c) Lobo river reservoir.
Point 9. Chapter 2.2.1. Please in English
Response 9. This error has been corrected.
Point 10. Row 145. Please specify how SSC and QL have been calculated or measured. More detail please.
Response 10. In the laboratory, the water samples were filtered on a millipore filtration manifold using pre-weighed WHATMAN GF/F circular filters of 47 mm diameter and 0.45 µm porosity. After drying in an oven at 105°C, the filters were carefully recovered and mand the ratio of the mass of suspended solids to the volume of filtered water samples was used to calculate the suspended solids concentration (SSC). (Line 146-150)
The liquid flows (Ql) were obtained from the Sikaboutou hydrometric station upstream of the Lobo River reservoir. (Line 134-139)
Point 11. Row 151. Delete double space.
Response 11. The double space was deleted (Line 166-167)
Point 12. Row 152. Capital letter. Please in general be more accurate in the style here and along the manuscript.
Response 12. This error has been corrected (line 167-168)
Point 13. Row 194: ‘quiescent waters conditions’. In my opinion quiescent is not the right term, please replace it.
Response 13. Quiescent waters conditions’ has been replaced in the manuscript by still water conditions
Point 14. Row 195. Please specify where the samples were taken. Is it possible or show a map? or report the point in fig. 1?
Response 14. The sampling points are described (Line 145-146) and presented in Figure 1. The map of the Lobo River catchment has been modified (Figure 1).
Point 15. Row 228. Quiescent is a term that usually was referred to landslides..I suggest to try to have a look some references are adopted or not. If adopted please specify the meaning
Response 15. Quiescent waters conditions’ has been replaced in the manuscript by ‘still water conditions’
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Evaluation of the Gamma law for settling velocity and trapping capacity analysis of suspended particles on dam reservoir (Lobo River in Côte d'Ivoire)” mainly focuses on the settling and trapping performance of suspended particles for the dam, while the research was of significance. However, the following issues need to be improved before its publication.
1. The format of the whole manuscript should be unified. In addition, please list the full name when the abbreviation word first appeared.
2. Please give detailed information or explanation of lines 285-286 and 52-53 in the manuscript. The current statement may confuse the readers.
3. What is the consistency rate of your analysis data with the actual observed data? Compared with other literature, our investigation has improved the accuracy of the data.
4. In the process of obtaining suspended and bottom solids data, was the sample's collection time set as every month or others? Will there be data errors for the sample data collected during periods of heavy precipitation?
5. In the process of constructing the mathematical model, the authors have constructed a total of 86 cross-sections (each spaced 50 meters apart). If it were applied to a relatively larger reservoir, should the interval be expanded, aiming to reduce the number of cross-sections? If this were conducted, the overall accuracy would possibly be reduced.
6. How to apply your research in the local reservoir scheduling? If this research method were used in reservoirs in winter, how should the data model or route improve?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We want to thank the anonymous Reviewer for his helpful and constructive comments. Thanks to him, the paper improved significantly.
Please find our comments and answers to all your comments.
Best regards
Bérenger KOFFI
Point 1. The format of the whole manuscript should be unified. In addition, please list the full name when the abbreviation word first appeared.
Response 1. All manuscript was unified
Point 2. Please give detailed information or explanation of lines 285-286 and 52-53 in the manuscript. The current statement may confuse the readers.
Response 2. Lines 285-286 and 52-53 have been modified and corrected. This part of the manuscript has been corrected (52-54 and 296-298)
Point 3. What is the consistency rate of your analysis data with the actual observed data? Compared with other literature, our investigation has improved the accuracy of the data.
Response 3. The consistency rate is essentially identical to the observed data published by Koffi (2020; 2022) and the work of Kouassi (2013)
Point 4. In the process of obtaining suspended and bottom solids data, was the sample's collection time set as every month or others? Will there be data errors for the sample data collected during periods of heavy precipitation?
Response 4. Data collection was carried out for all months from 2019 to 2020. There were no errors during the data collection during the heavy precipitation periods. Several tests were carried out to avoid possible errors.
Point 5. In the process of constructing the mathematical model, the authors have constructed a total of 86 cross-sections (each spaced 50 meters apart). If it were applied to a relatively larger reservoir, should the interval be expanded, aiming to reduce the number of cross-sections? If this were conducted, the overall accuracy would possibly be reduced.
Response 5. If we were in a larger reservoir, the 50 m distance between profiles could be reduced or kept. Indeed, by reducing the scale, it allows us to have finer and more precise information.
Point 6. How to apply your research in the local reservoir scheduling? If this research method were used in reservoirs in winter, how should the data model or route improve?
Response 6. This method was first applied in a dam. It was originally applied in drinking water settling ponds by Sanchez (2018). This method was adapted to dams.
The results obtained by this method were compared with the results of a sediment transport model using the MIKE 21 software. A high degree of consistency was found between the results of this method and those of Mike 21, which are currently being reviewed in another journal. This shows the reliability of this method.
This method has already been used in Europe (France) by Sanchez (2018) and has produced fairly consistent results.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript can be now accepted in this journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors and editors should take a good look at the current manuscript format, as many paragraphs were folded and hidden.
