Hydrochemical Characteristics and Dominant Controlling Factors of the Qujiang River Under Dual Natural–Anthropogenic Influences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study discusses the hydrochemical characteristics, solute sources and control mechanisms of the Qujiang River, a major tributary of the Yangtze River, using 61 surface water samples collected between July and September 2019. The authors represent an integrated methodological approach including spatial analysis with ArcGIS, Piper and Gibbs diagrams, ion ratio analysis, and principal component analysis (PCA) was adopted. The topic is interesting and the manuscript is quite well organized. The introduction and conclusion sections need to be revised and material and methods more detailed.

Introduction needs to be more detailed: please consider different studies to support this topic. Interesting paper that I suggest to read is:

https://doi.org/10.3390/w13212945

The figure 1 is too small and low readable. Please enhance the quality. Here or in supplementary material add a clear map where each point has its name and a reader can interpret the figure 4 to understand where the points are.

To support line 96-104 introduce a stratigraphic log or hydrogeological section.

Paragraph 2.2 can be condensed in a summary table to improve readability of manuscript. Then a particular description/discussion of each method used to determine the parameter value should be included.

Table 1: to which point of measurement are referring the values in the table?

Lines 269-270 Be careful with typo and formatting errors

Figure 6 can be placed on one line. Figure 7 can be placed on 2 lines.

Chapter 4 is too detailed. Try to summarize each content giving more importance to support your final thesis.

Lines 429-433 has no sense. Please re-formulate a new sentence.

Please highlight the limitations of your approach in your conclusions.

At the beginning of Conclusion a sentence summarizing aim and general results (highlighting the advantages of the resource) is needed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be enhanced

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your research is a monitoring of water quality indicators of the Qujiang river basin, based on which you presented the characteristics of the basin, the spatial distribution of water quality indicators, a comparison of key parameters with other basins, identification of pollution sources, the impact of anthropogenic factors, identification of dominant water quality indicators in three sections of the river.

Below are my comments that will help improve the manuscript:

1. How is the name of the basin correctly called? See line 3 in the title and line 81 in the study area?
2. In my opinion, you are not study any mechanisms, so the goal needs to be corrected. In my opinion, you wrote the goal in line 123.
3. Subsection 3.1. is a description of the characteristics of changes in water quality indicators, some of which are presented in Table 1. Why do you only describe pH and ions: Ca, Na SO4 HCO3? What about the rest of the water quality indicators listed in the table?
4. Line 107: Figure 1 replace with Figure 1c.
5. Line 108: Why are you using guidelines for groundwater? Justify this in the manuscript or correct it. Especially since you are further providing standards for surface waters: (line 162).
6. Did you use precipitation values and other meteorological data, other geological parameters in your analyzes?
7. Why don't you show all the indicators in the figures? The reader does not know what is happening with the others. Show them even if it is to be in supplementary material and refer to them.
8. Line 162-163: why are you analyzing surface water standards and drinking water standards?
9. Figure 2: Why are there 2 axes - this is an incorrect graph in my opinion.
10. Line: 402: see font.
11. Remove line 233 and change in line 134: ‘Results and discussion’. Next, subchapter 4.1. And each subsequent one as a continuation after subchapter 3.2.
12. Conclusions: The conclusions are too long. In my opinion, the conclusions should arise from the study, and it seems that in this section you are repeating the results and discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line: 402: see font.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors reply to all the question of reviewers and the manuscript in my opinion can be published

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review and invaluable suggestions for our manuscript. Your professional insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper during the revision process. It is truly gratifying to learn that our responses to the review questions and the revised manuscript meet with your approval. Your positive feedback is highly encouraging and motivates us greatly. Thank you again for your support and affirmation.

 

Best regards,

Xiao Li

Institute of Disaster Prevention

Langfang, Hebei, China

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,
Thank you for responses to my comments and for answering the questions. Below are a few remarks that may help improve your article.

1) In my opinion, 'catchment' and 'basin' cannot be used interchangeably. A basin consists of several catchments. Please verify whether your study area is indeed a basin. In line 88, you use the term 'catchment'. Please ensure consistent use of the terms 'catchment' and 'basin' throughout the article.

Lines 130–134: In my opinion, the analysis of the diagram does not fully explain the mechanism, so please revise the sentence in lines 130–134.

Comment 3: Referring back to my Comment 3, thank you for adding the paragraph describing other indicators. You should also mention in this paragraph which indicators play a significant role in determining hydrochemical types and understanding hydrochemical evolution processes.

Comment 4: Thank you for correcting the figure. Please update the references in the text in accordance with the author guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf