Improving the Efficiency and Environmental Friendliness of Urban Stormwater Management by Enhancing the Water Filtration Model in Rain Gardens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors created and discussed a new system of equations that extend the ability to calculate the rate, flow rate, and time of saturation of layers and rainwater leakage from the rain garden system. On this basis, they further investigated the dynamic processes of passage and saturation of water through the layers of the structure. This work provides new solution into the development of water filtration model. The overall value of the article is acceptable. But I would suggest the following major concerns are addressed.

 

1. The review of the 16 studies described in the abstract is not included in the text. Guidance provided by different countries on the design and operation of existing rain gardens in different geographical areas needs to be supported by data and tables or images. And in the abstract, "improve existing hydrological models" is not reflected in  the article. Beacuse simply creating a system of equations using Darcy's law alone is not an improvement over an existing hydrological model. It is recommended to delete "improve existing hydrological models".

 

2. The background section of this article is too long. It is recommended that the description of stormwater management be significantly deleted because it is less relevant to the overall goal of this article. The description should be focused on a summary of the development and shortcomings of the rain garden infiltration model. It is recommended that the description be divided into time periods.

 

3. In the Materials and Methods section of this article, the logic of module “2.1. Experimental set” needs to be adjusted. In this module, the author should place the design of rain events and the software for model establishment after module 2.2 Hydrological model, and need Further clarify the purpose and details of the experiment, reduce unnecessary content such as the explanation of the functions of each layer of the rain garden, and put the results obtained from the experiment in the results section. At the same time, the relationship between the experiment and the conclusion is not clear and should be adequately described. Further elaboration is needed on the significance of the experiments for model establishment and operation.

 

4. In the Results and Discussion section, the author gives the impact of different parameters on penetration. And the model simulation in this article can support the final conclusion. The data analysis is logically self-consistent and provides explanations, but further explanation is needed as to why the model responds accordingly when parameters change. And put Further research in the Conclusions module. In addition, the comparison with other literature at the end of the Results and Discussion section requires tables and image support. It is recommended to adjust the structure of all tables to highlight the changes in parameters to prevent readers from being difficult to understand which parameters are the goals of the research, and to use subtitles to separate different Analysis of parameter changes.

 

5. This article is well-referenced and relatively recent, but further expansion of the literature on infiltration equations and models for rain gardens or similar structures is recommended.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In this manuscript, the authors created and discussed a new system of equations that extend the ability to calculate the rate, flow rate, and time of saturation of layers and rainwater leakage from the rain garden system. On this basis, they further investigated the dynamic processes of passage and saturation of water through the layers of the structure. This work provides new solution into the development of water filtration model. The overall value of the article is acceptable. But I would suggest the following major concerns are addressed.

 

1. The review of the 16 studies described in the abstract is not included in the text. Guidance provided by different countries on the design and operation of existing rain gardens in different geographical areas needs to be supported by data and tables or images. And in the abstract, "improve existing hydrological models" is not reflected in  the article. Beacuse simply creating a system of equations using Darcy's law alone is not an improvement over an existing hydrological model. It is recommended to delete "improve existing hydrological models".

 

2. The background section of this article is too long. It is recommended that the description of stormwater management be significantly deleted because it is less relevant to the overall goal of this article. The description should be focused on a summary of the development and shortcomings of the rain garden infiltration model. It is recommended that the description be divided into time periods.

 

3. In the Materials and Methods section of this article, the logic of module “2.1. Experimental set” needs to be adjusted. In this module, the author should place the design of rain events and the software for model establishment after module 2.2 Hydrological model, and need Further clarify the purpose and details of the experiment, reduce unnecessary content such as the explanation of the functions of each layer of the rain garden, and put the results obtained from the experiment in the results section. At the same time, the relationship between the experiment and the conclusion is not clear and should be adequately described. Further elaboration is needed on the significance of the experiments for model establishment and operation.

 

4. In the Results and Discussion section, the author gives the impact of different parameters on penetration. And the model simulation in this article can support the final conclusion. The data analysis is logically self-consistent and provides explanations, but further explanation is needed as to why the model responds accordingly when parameters change. And put Further research in the Conclusions module. In addition, the comparison with other literature at the end of the Results and Discussion section requires tables and image support. It is recommended to adjust the structure of all tables to highlight the changes in parameters to prevent readers from being difficult to understand which parameters are the goals of the research, and to use subtitles to separate different Analysis of parameter changes.

 

5. This article is well-referenced and relatively recent, but further expansion of the literature on infiltration equations and models for rain gardens or similar structures is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us prepare the manuscript for publication in the journal "Water". We carefully considered and respected each of your comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. We made sure to take into account all of Your comments and recommendations, and we have responded to them below.

 

Our responses and comments to your comments are as follows:

1. The review of the 16 studies described in the abstract is not included in the text. Guidance provided by different countries on the design and operation of existing rain gardens in different geographical areas needs to be supported by data and tables or images. And in the abstract, "improve existing hydrological models" is not reflected in  the article. Beacuse simply creating a system of equations using Darcy's law alone is not an improvement over an existing hydrological model. It is recommended to delete "improve existing hydrological models".

 

Thank you for the important comments. We did it.

I have made the necessary changes as per your request. The phrase "Improvement of existing hydrological models" has been removed from the " Abstract " section. Additionally, I have added a new table in the Introduction section (line 84 – 91) that describes the recommendations provided by different countries on the design and operation of existing rain gardens in different geographical areas.

 

2. The background section of this article is too long. It is recommended that the description of stormwater management be significantly deleted because it is less relevant to the overall goal of this article. The description should be focused on a summary of the development and shortcomings of the rain garden infiltration model. It is recommended that the description be divided into time periods.

 

Thank you for the important recommendation! Given the subject matter of our manuscript, your comment is very valid. We have removed the description of stormwater management from the Introduction section and instead provided more details on the evolution and limitations of known infiltration models (line 110 - 163).

 

3. In the Materials and Methods section of this article, the logic of module “2.1. Experimental set” needs to be adjusted. In this module, the author should place the design of rain events and the software for model establishment after module 2.2 Hydrological model, and need Further clarify the purpose and details of the experiment, reduce unnecessary content such as the explanation of the functions of each layer of the rain garden, and put the results obtained from the experiment in the results section. At the same time, the relationship between the experiment and the conclusion is not clear and should be adequately described. Further elaboration is needed on the significance of the experiments for model establishment and operation.

 

Thank you for your very important recommendations and comments on one of the key sections of our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have completely revised the structure and logic of Chapter 2, Materials and Methods. Here are the main changes we have made:

1. The structure and functions of each layer of the rain garden have been moved to the Introduction section (line 55-64).
2. The results of the experimental determination of water holding capacity are now located in Chapter 3, Results and Discussion (line 435-443).
3. Clarification of the relationship between the experiment and the conclusion was emphasized in the section "Conclusions" (line 660 - 662).
4. Chapter 2 "Materials and Methods" now has a logical structure with several subsections, according to your comments:

- Subsection 2.1 "Rainfall event" describes and justifies the rainfall event that we used to verify the correctness of the developed hydrological model (line 211-238);

- Subsection 2.2 "Hydrological model" is supplemented by a new subsection 2.3 "Algorithm and software", which describes in detail the flowchart of the hydrological model development methodology. Your recommendation on software development has significantly improved the scientific level of our manuscript (line 342-399);

- Subsection 2.4 "Water-holding capacity of soil materials" describes the methodology for determining the water-holding capacity of soil materials (line 400-433). Water holding capacity is one of the key parameters of the developed model. This parameter is not a constant value, so using fixed values in the model can lead to an error in the description of hydrological processes. The experimental columns depicted in the photos in the manuscript (line 413-414) are used in our other experiment. However, we decided to use them for the laboratory determination of the water-holding capacity of soil materials typical for Ukraine. The water-holding capacity values obtained in this way were safely entered as parameters in the developed model.

 

4. In the Results and Discussion section, the author gives the impact of different parameters on penetration. And the model simulation in this article can support the final conclusion. The data analysis is logically self-consistent and provides explanations, but further explanation is needed as to why the model responds accordingly when parameters change. And put Further research in the Conclusions module. In addition, the comparison with other literature at the end of the Results and Discussion section requires tables and image support. It is recommended to adjust the structure of all tables to highlight the changes in parameters to prevent readers from being difficult to understand which parameters are the goals of the research, and to use subtitles to separate different Analysis of parameter changes.

 

Thank you for your feedback! We have provided an explanation of how parameter changes impact the model response at the end of the Results section (line 611-616). Additionally, we have moved further research to the Conclusions section (line 677-690). Following your suggestions, we have analyzed the content and structure of all tables. To improve the readability of the results, we have removed the rows of the tables A_bassin, A_sponge, and τ, since these values are already shown in the corresponding figures. Moreover, we have bolded the main parameter, the area ratio, in all tables. Unfortunately, there is not much literature available on experimental studies similar to ours. However, we have analyzed scientific publications on this topic. A comparison of our results with other literature is presented in Section 3, Results and Discussion (line 617-645).

 

5. This article is well-referenced and relatively recent, but further expansion of the literature on infiltration equations and models for rain gardens or similar structures is recommended.

 

Thank you for Your feedback! We have made an effort to provide more information regarding the literature sources that are relevant to rain garden models. You can find the updated information in the Introduction section (line 110-163) and partially in Chapter 3, Results and Discussion (line 617-645).

 

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution in reviewing and considering our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work in the review process and wish you continued professional success.

 

Best regards, Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The water filtration using rain gardens may not be a novel work; however, the manuscript is well written. It still provides value to the existing literature. Please see few issues below:

- Methodology section is relatively weak. It may be improved by providing a flow chart of methodology.

- Too many equations are included in methodology section. Please include these equations in appendix, if it is OK. 

- Few small paragraphs included in lines 160 - 180. Please combine some of them. Also clearly mention the motivation of this study here.

- Table 3: instead of 1,2........5, please use Sample 1, Sample 2........Sample 5. Similarly, please check other tables.

- Please write on future direction of this study, such as, how the this lab test can be implemented into field test. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us prepare the manuscript for publication in the journal "Water". We carefully considered and respected each of Your comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our work. We made sure to take into account all of Your comments and recommendations, and we have responded to them below.

 

Our responses and comments to your comments are as follows:

1. Methodology section is relatively weak. It may be improved by providing a flow chart of methodology.

Response: Thank you for your feedback! Your recommendation to create a methodology flowchart for the hydrological model was incredibly valuable. It helped to improve the quality and scientific validity of our work. We have now created the flowchart and included it in our article as a separate subsection (2.3 Algorithm and Software, line 342-399).

 

2. Too many equations are included in methodology section. Please include these equations in appendix, if it is OK. 

Response: Thank you for your comment! In the paper we presented, we did not provide intermediate modelling results, but only the basic equations describing certain assumptions. Therefore, if we transferred some of the equations to the appendices, unfortunately, the overall logic of the proposed model would be violated.

 

3. Few small paragraphs included in lines 160 - 180. Please combine some of them. Also clearly mention the motivation of this study here.

Response: Thank you for your feedback! We have carefully analyzed the purpose and scientific and practical value of the work, taking into account your recommendations (line 194-208).

 

4. Table 3: instead of 1,2........5, please use Sample 1, Sample 2........Sample 5. Similarly, please check other tables.

Response: Thank you for your feedback! We have made the necessary changes to the tables according to your recommendations. The design and readability of the tables have significantly improved (Design 1, Design 2...).

 

5. Please write on future direction of this study, such as, how the this lab test can be implemented into field test.

Response: Thank you for your valuable recommendation! We have discussed additional research areas and the feasibility of integrating laboratory tests into field trials in Chapter 4, Conclusions (line 676-689). This is a critical aspect, and we appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

 

Thank you once again for Your invaluable contribution in reviewing and considering our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work in the review process and wish you continued professional success.

 

Best regards, Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, most of the previously raised issues have been well resolved. The Section Introduction and the Section Materials and Methods of the article have been carefully modified in terms of logic and content, detailing the previous penetration model, the process of software developing and the purpose of the experiment. The manuscript can meet the major requirements and has been greatly improved. Therefore, I think the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Water.

In addition, it may be better to modify some details. For example, the climate item in Table 1 is confusing. It does not explain the specific applicable environmental climate conditions in each recommendation, and has no connection with the description of environmental suitability below. In the Results and Discussion section，it is necessary to combine the research results of other people into the process of analyzing the results of the research for comparison, rather than simply listing them. At the same time, in the five tables of the results, you can boldly mark the variables with changing values that you have set to better display and explain.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is well written.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!
Thank you very much for your time and help!!!
We have taken your comments into account. We did the necessary changes that you brought to our attention.

Thank you very much
We wish you professional success
Best regards
Team of Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for revising the manuscript. There are too many equations in the main body of the manuscript. Please check whether these could be included in appendix (or using supplementary material). Also information in Section 2.3 may not be included in the article; either remove it or include it in appendix or as supplementary material. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is needed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!
We also thank you very much for your time and help!!!
We have taken your comments into account. We have created an App and transferred the flowchart. In our opinion, we cannot transfer part of the equations to the application or remove them. This will greatly change the understanding of the article for the average reader. We suggest leaving it in the article.

Thank you very much
We wish you professional success
Best regards
Team of Authors