The Impact of Water Wells Efficiency on Hydrogeological Parameters Assessment and Defect Identification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, an efficiency of wells based on temporal changes in hydrogeological parameters through the application of the step-drawdown test was studied. Essentially, this is a well-known method for testing wells, which the authors applied to 40 selected wells located in aquifers with both fractured and intergranular porosity. In the methodology section, the authors presented empirical expressions used in the interpretation of the well test results; however, the connection between the listed formulas is missing, which would clearly indicate a comprehensive methodological approach in the context of the study’s objective.

Furthermore, the introduction is too brief and lacks a review of previous research. The formulas currently placed in the introduction should be moved to the methodology section. Additionally, the article lacks a thorough discussion of the obtained results, which would clearly highlight possible cause-and-effect relationships between changes in hydrogeological parameters over time and the actual causes of these changes, as well as the consequences that manifest not only in the efficiency of the wells in terms of available pumping rates, but also in the quality of the extracted water.

It should also be noted that a thorough proofreading of the English text is necessary.

Below are some specific comments:

• Line 187 – Which parameters? Please specify.
• Figure 3 – The map lacks a north arrow.
• Since the study considers changes in well efficiency in relation to changes in hydrogeological parameters, at least a schematic hydrogeological map of Poland should be included, showing the locations of individual wells. It would also be useful to label the wells both on the maps and in the tables to provide a better spatial overview of the distribution of well groups.
• Line 200 – What are the reasons (at least assumed) why these three wells have an initial efficiency of 1?
• Line 216 – Same question as in point 4.
• A more precise description of the step-drawdown test procedure is needed.
• Line 233 – What does “indicated by the users” mean? Please clarify.
• The conclusion or discussion lacks a clear presentation of the limitations of applying this methodology.
• Line 329 – Why are the mentioned findings, which are introduced for the first time in the conclusion, not elaborated in the discussion?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough proofreading of the English text is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comprehensive review. 

Below you will find some notes regarding the corrections we have made. Please see the attachment.

 

The English text has been corrected.

 

• Line 187 – Which parameters? Please specify.

• The parameters are specified in line 220.

• Figure 3 – The map lacks a north arrow.

• Figure 3 has been corrected.

• Since the study considers changes in well efficiency in relation to changes in hydrogeological parameters, at least a schematic hydrogeological map of Poland should be included, showing the locations of individual wells. It would also be useful to label the wells both on the maps and in the tables to provide a better spatial overview of the distribution of well groups.

• The hydrogeological map of Poland in the format presented in the article is too small and illegible.

• Line 200 – What are the reasons (at least assumed) why these three wells have an initial efficiency of 1?

• The explanation can be found in new lines: 239-241

• Line 216 – Same question as in point 4.

• The explanation can be found in new lines: 257-260

• A more precise description of the step-drawdown test procedure is needed.

• The procedure for the step-down test is included in lines: 50-73

• Line 233 – What does “indicated by the users” mean? Please clarify.

• A detailed explanation can be found in new line: 276

• The conclusion or discussion lacks a clear presentation of the limitations of applying this methodology.

• The limitations of the STD method are described in lines 70-73 (intro) and rows: 378-381, 384-385 (conclusons).

• Line 329 – Why are the mentioned findings, which are introduced for the first time in the conclusion, not elaborated in the discussion?

• The discussion section (lines 319-390) and conclusions (lines 401-407) have been expanded.

 

 Furthermore, we decided to change the alpha factor (Tables 1 and 2) to non-laminar flow resistance (C) to improve the clarity of the argument.

Best regards,

KP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled " The impact of water wells efficiency on hydrogeological parameters assessment and defect identification" is submitted for review for potential publication. 

Here are my comments"

1. The introduction is well written while lacking citations.  It was evident that majority of the statements and arguments are already from other resources.
2. conventions 1-38 (or higher were used) in the figures presented while no legend was provided.  It is uncertain as to what are these numbers and letters are for. 
3. The methodology has a well rounded discussion on equations used to simulate the parameters required, while no methodology in terms of how accuracy and precision will be achieved as the formulas are used for generating simulated value.   It was also unclear how many replicates are prepared for each experimental/testing done. 
4. The data sets classified the wells as fractured and porous aquifers, while these terms were not mentioned in the abstract. 
5. Figure 8: look into well no. 14 and explain implications of very low bf and very high bo? what is the impact to the aquifer in the overall and how is it compared to well no. 20 and 22 having opposite characteristics. 
6. Figure 9: explain the very high initial well yield relative to the final well yield.  compare these findings with well no. 14, 15 and 16.  then conclude. 
7. Figure 10: I cannot understand what this figure represents. NO axes labels and not much in the discussion for it. 
8. Figure 11. explain trend shown in well no. 27 and 29 and compare wil well no. 7 and 8. What is the actual implications to the aquifer? 
9. The Results and Discussions is inadequate with regards to the ample amounts of data presented, Provide an apple-to-apple results and discussion with adequate referencing. 
10. The conclusions does not capture the actual attributes of the data.  The abstract, results and conclusion must represent corresponding part and communicate common findings. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your substantial comments.
Below are some tips regarding the corrections we made. Please see the attached file.

1. The introduction is well written while lacking citations.  It was evident that majority of the statements and arguments are already from other resources.
   • The introduction section includes citations and changed according to Reviewer 1. comment
2. conventions 1-38 (or higher were used) in the figures presented while no legend was provided.  It is uncertain as to what are these numbers and letters are for. 
   • The explanation is provided in lines 218-220.
3. The methodology has a well rounded discussion on equations used to simulate the parameters required, while no methodology in terms of how accuracy and precision will be achieved as the formulas are used for generating simulated value.   It was also unclear how many replicates are prepared for each experimental/testing done. 
   • We have included additional explanations in the lines: 224-228
4. The data sets classified the wells as fractured and porous aquifers, while these terms were not mentioned in the abstract.
   •  The abstract has been corrected, lines 10-14
5. Figure 8: look into well no. 14 and explain implications of very low bf and very high bo? what is the impact to the aquifer in the overall and how is it compared to well no. 20 and 22 having opposite characteristics.
   • The discussion section has been expanded to include these issues in lines 319-360.
6. Figure 9: explain the very high initial well yield relative to the final well yield.  compare these findings with well no. 14, 15 and 16.  then conclude. 
   • The discussion section has been expanded to include these issues in lines 319-360.
7. Figure 10: I cannot understand what this figure represents. NO axes labels and not much in the discussion for it. 
   • The Figure 10 has been corrected 
8. Figure 11. explain trend shown in well no. 27 and 29 and compare wil well no. 7 and 8. What is the actual implications to the aquifer? 
   • The discussion section has been expanded to include these issues in lines 319-360.
9. The Results and Discussions is inadequate with regards to the ample amounts of data presented, Provide an apple-to-apple results and discussion with adequate referencing. 
   • The discussion section has been expanded according to your comment.
10. The conclusions does not capture the actual attributes of the data.  The abstract, results and conclusion must represent corresponding part and communicate common findings. 
    • The research material might be too extensive. However, the reduction of case numbers could result in limitations in presenting the types of inefficiencies, confirming their repeatability, and making comparisons. I hope the new discussion section will give explanations for the content of the sections: summary, results, and conclusions.

Furthermore, we decided to change the alpha factor (Tables 1 and 2) to non-laminar flow resistance (C) to improve the clarity of the argument.

Best regards,

KP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of my comments, but two significant issues remain: the hydrogeological map and the fact that the introduction lacks a review of previous research in this field. In their responses, the authors stated that the hydrogeological map of Poland is too small and illegible. Nowadays, many regional hydrogeological studies are being conducted worldwide, and the results of these studies are published in numerous scientific journals. Typically, each such paper includes at least a schematic conceptual model or a hydrogeological map, regardless of the size of the area. This is also important in this paper, considering that the authors refer to specific geological periods and various hydrogeological units.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

According to your suggestion, the new version of the MGR map connected to our research has been added. To clear the view, a focused area was provided. The additional explanation below Figure 1 was included. Moreover, in the introduction section, previous research in this field has been added.
I would like to thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions. We appreciate it.

Best regards,

KP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Inspect for the last time the consistency of the figures:

axes labels, and legends. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The consistency of the figures, axes labels, and legends has been inspected.
The additional explanation to the new version of Figure 1 has been provided.

Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions.

Best regards,

Krzysztof Polak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf