Microbial Response of Fe and Mn Biogeochemical Processes in Hyporheic Zone Affected by Groundwater Exploitation Along Riverbank

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, titled "Microbial response of iron manganese biogeochemical processes in the subsurface flow zone to water intake from rivers," addresses an important topic for the hydrological community and an interesting area of ​​research. However, at this stage, it requires significant corrections and/or additions. Some sections of the text require additional commentary. Many sections of the paper (e.g., Chapter 2.1.1) are written in an overly confusing manner, contain terminological and factual errors, and are generally difficult for the reader to understand. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to simplify these chapters somewhat and write them more concisely, making them less confusing for the reader? I strongly suggest proofreading by a native speaker of the natural sciences.

 

Detailed comments are provided below, with individual line numbers.

 

Line 29: I am not convinced that the term "phreatic zone" refers to the zone of contact between surface and groundwater, as the Authors suggest. In my opinion, this is a broader concept and simply describes the subsurface region where all pores and fissures in the soil or rock are completely filled with water and lateral water flow dominates (also known as the saturation zone). In essence, this is simply part of the aquifer system. I suggest reconsidering the terminology used. This also applies to terms such as "observation holes" used by the Authors.

 

Lines 62-67: "...To investigate ..." – This sentence is too long and unclear.

 

Line 65: "submerged zone" – an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 78: Were any studies conducted on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? The Authors repeatedly mention the correlation of microbiological and physicochemical test results in the manuscript.

 

Line 85: "...water dynamics" – Again, an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Lines 91 and later: "The main recharge mode of groundwater is the lateral recharge of surface water, and the main seepage path of river water..." This sentence is too long and incomprehensible. Furthermore, much of the information presented here may be misleading.

 

Lines 93-95: On what basis did the Authors determine the groundwater flow paths described here? Is this based on hydrodynamic analysis, flow modeling (ModFlow or other tools), or other types of research?

 

Line 97: "...so it takes place at a more adequate time." - an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 99: How can river water infiltrate within 350 meters of the riverbank?

 

The description of groundwater circulation conditions is very confusing, and in many parts, I seriously doubt its substantive accuracy. Overall, the description of the hydrogeological conditions of the study area is, in my opinion, overly simplified. This is quite surprising, since the work concerns groundwater. There is no groundwater table map of the aquifer(s), which could reflect the hydrodynamic conditions of the study area. The current nature of water flow/interaction between surface water and the groundwater system is unclear. A groundwater table map would be useful for a better understanding of the problem. In fact, the hydrogeological cross-section of the study area should be included in this chapter, not as Fig. 4 in Chapter "Discussion of Results." I believe this information is worth presenting in the manuscript because it represents the main focus of the authors' research. This is crucial for data analysis and interpretation.

 

Line 101: The authors indicate that samples were collected from the hyporheic zone, but the issues surrounding this zone and its importance in surface water/groundwater interactions are completely omitted from the manuscript. Overall, the review of scientific research on surface water/groundwater interactions is rather sparse. I believe the introduction (or elsewhere) could provide a more extensive discussion of the hyporheic zone, or more generally, surface water-groundwater interactions. Generally speaking, the key issue for surface water-groundwater interactions is the hydraulic relations between the river and the aquifer. It is worth noting that a broad approach is used to assess the extent of the riverwater-groundwater mixing zone, or the hyporheic zone itself. For example, Harvey et al. (1996) indicate that the river-groundwater mixing zone also includes "groundwater that has not reached the riverbed." Hyporheic flow, however, is usually distinguished from groundwater flowing into river channels due to its bidirectional nature—infiltration of river water into the bed and its return as a result of drainage as a mixture with groundwater (Boano et al., 2014). The mixing zone of surface water and groundwater can be characterized by complex flow and mixing conditions. For example, studies conducted using gaseous tracers (CFCs, SF6, noble gases) allowed for a better understanding of the nature of groundwater and surface water inflow and mixing in the hyporheic zone and an assessment of the dynamics of this process under natural and conditions disturbed by groundwater abstraction (Kotowski et al., 2023). These studies allowed, among other things, to determine the ratio of surface water to groundwater in the hyporheic zone and the extent of the hyporheic exchange zone. The water mixture in this zone may differ in terms of the content of abiotic/biotic components, both from river water and groundwater.

Line 128: „Samples of microorganisms in groundwater were collected from the river and …” - ??

 

Lines 129 and further: I also have a few questions regarding the groundwater sampling and  used methodology. It is unclear whether the samples originated from one or more aquifer systems. It is not known at all what depth the samples were collected from or at what depth the well's screen is located. The authors mention that sampling was conducted from observation wells. Were these wells pumped and flushed before sampling?

 

Line 179 and further: The information presented here regarding microorganisms is very extensive, but most of it is not used in further interpretation of the Authors' research results. I believe that the entire chapter could be significantly shortened without compromising the quality of the scientific communication.

 

Line 260-267: How did the Authors determine the geochemical evolution of groundwater during river water infiltration in the study area? And how does this relate to the structure and function of microbial communities? Are these conclusions based on the Authors' own observations, or perhaps the observations/conclusions of other authors? (citation issue?).

 

Lines 266-267: "Therefore, microorganisms in the environment have a certain response pattern to the redox subzone" – Again. What is the basis for this statement?

 

Line 278: "…a good correlation" - ?? What is the R or R2 value of this correlation?

 

Lines 306-307: "As analyzed earlier, the effective form of manganese content in deep water containing medium 306 was lower than that of iron, so the Fe2+ content in deep groundwater was relatively high." - Have the Authors conducted studies on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? If so, where are the results of these studies and a description of the sampling/measurement methodology?

 

Line 326: "The environmental factors (DO, Eh, pH) ...) – Again. See my previous comment.

 

The Conclusion chapter contains virtually no conclusions, merely a repetition of information presented earlier. It is largely a superficial summary of the research conducted, rather than any conclusions drawn from it. Some statements are also completely incomprehensible and do not directly follow from the content of the paper and the presented research results. In light of the above comments, I believe the Summary chapter should be thoroughly revised, and I am not addressing the content of this chapter at this time.

 

References:

Harvey J.W., Wagner B.J., Bencala K.E. 1996. Evaluating the reliability of the stream tracer approach to characterize stream-sub-surface water exchange. Water Resources Research 32: 2441-2451, https://doi.org/10.1029/ 96WR01268.

Kotowski T., Najman J., Nowobilska-Luberda A., Bergel T. and Kaczor G., 2023. Analysis of the interaction between surface water and groundwater using gaseous tracers in a dynamic test at a riverbank filtration intake. Hydrological Processes, 37(4),  e14862, doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14862

Boano F., Harvey J.W., Marion A., Pack-man A.I., Revelli R., Ridolfi L., Wörman A. 2014. Hyporheic flow and transport processes: Mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Reviews of Geophysics 52: 603-679, https://doi. org/10.1002/2012RG000417

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper, titled "Microbial response of iron manganese biogeochemical processes in the subsurface flow zone to water intake from rivers," addresses an important topic for the hydrological community and an interesting area of ​​research. However, at this stage, it requires significant corrections and/or additions. Some sections of the text require additional commentary. Many sections of the paper (e.g., Chapter 2.1.1) are written in an overly confusing manner, contain terminological and factual errors, and are generally difficult for the reader to understand. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to simplify these chapters somewhat and write them more concisely, making them less confusing for the reader? I strongly suggest proofreading by a native speaker of the natural sciences.

 

Detailed comments are provided below, with individual line numbers.

 

Line 29: I am not convinced that the term "phreatic zone" refers to the zone of contact between surface and groundwater, as the Authors suggest. In my opinion, this is a broader concept and simply describes the subsurface region where all pores and fissures in the soil or rock are completely filled with water and lateral water flow dominates (also known as the saturation zone). In essence, this is simply part of the aquifer system. I suggest reconsidering the terminology used. This also applies to terms such as "observation holes" used by the Authors.

 

Lines 62-67: "...To investigate ..." – This sentence is too long and unclear.

 

Line 65: "submerged zone" – an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 78: Were any studies conducted on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? The Authors repeatedly mention the correlation of microbiological and physicochemical test results in the manuscript.

 

Line 85: "...water dynamics" – Again, an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Lines 91 and later: "The main recharge mode of groundwater is the lateral recharge of surface water, and the main seepage path of river water..." This sentence is too long and incomprehensible. Furthermore, much of the information presented here may be misleading.

 

Lines 93-95: On what basis did the Authors determine the groundwater flow paths described here? Is this based on hydrodynamic analysis, flow modeling (ModFlow or other tools), or other types of research?

 

Line 97: "...so it takes place at a more adequate time." - an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 99: How can river water infiltrate within 350 meters of the riverbank?

 

The description of groundwater circulation conditions is very confusing, and in many parts, I seriously doubt its substantive accuracy. Overall, the description of the hydrogeological conditions of the study area is, in my opinion, overly simplified. This is quite surprising, since the work concerns groundwater. There is no groundwater table map of the aquifer(s), which could reflect the hydrodynamic conditions of the study area. The current nature of water flow/interaction between surface water and the groundwater system is unclear. A groundwater table map would be useful for a better understanding of the problem. In fact, the hydrogeological cross-section of the study area should be included in this chapter, not as Fig. 4 in Chapter "Discussion of Results." I believe this information is worth presenting in the manuscript because it represents the main focus of the authors' research. This is crucial for data analysis and interpretation.

 

Line 101: The authors indicate that samples were collected from the hyporheic zone, but the issues surrounding this zone and its importance in surface water/groundwater interactions are completely omitted from the manuscript. Overall, the review of scientific research on surface water/groundwater interactions is rather sparse. I believe the introduction (or elsewhere) could provide a more extensive discussion of the hyporheic zone, or more generally, surface water-groundwater interactions. Generally speaking, the key issue for surface water-groundwater interactions is the hydraulic relations between the river and the aquifer. It is worth noting that a broad approach is used to assess the extent of the riverwater-groundwater mixing zone, or the hyporheic zone itself. For example, Harvey et al. (1996) indicate that the river-groundwater mixing zone also includes "groundwater that has not reached the riverbed." Hyporheic flow, however, is usually distinguished from groundwater flowing into river channels due to its bidirectional nature—infiltration of river water into the bed and its return as a result of drainage as a mixture with groundwater (Boano et al., 2014). The mixing zone of surface water and groundwater can be characterized by complex flow and mixing conditions. For example, studies conducted using gaseous tracers (CFCs, SF6, noble gases) allowed for a better understanding of the nature of groundwater and surface water inflow and mixing in the hyporheic zone and an assessment of the dynamics of this process under natural and conditions disturbed by groundwater abstraction (Kotowski et al., 2023). These studies allowed, among other things, to determine the ratio of surface water to groundwater in the hyporheic zone and the extent of the hyporheic exchange zone. The water mixture in this zone may differ in terms of the content of abiotic/biotic components, both from river water and groundwater.

Line 128: „Samples of microorganisms in groundwater were collected from the river and …” - ??

 

Lines 129 and further: I also have a few questions regarding the groundwater sampling and  used methodology. It is unclear whether the samples originated from one or more aquifer systems. It is not known at all what depth the samples were collected from or at what depth the well's screen is located. The authors mention that sampling was conducted from observation wells. Were these wells pumped and flushed before sampling?

 

Line 179 and further: The information presented here regarding microorganisms is very extensive, but most of it is not used in further interpretation of the Authors' research results. I believe that the entire chapter could be significantly shortened without compromising the quality of the scientific communication.

 

Line 260-267: How did the Authors determine the geochemical evolution of groundwater during river water infiltration in the study area? And how does this relate to the structure and function of microbial communities? Are these conclusions based on the Authors' own observations, or perhaps the observations/conclusions of other authors? (citation issue?).

 

Lines 266-267: "Therefore, microorganisms in the environment have a certain response pattern to the redox subzone" – Again. What is the basis for this statement?

 

Line 278: "…a good correlation" - ?? What is the R or R2 value of this correlation?

 

Lines 306-307: "As analyzed earlier, the effective form of manganese content in deep water containing medium 306 was lower than that of iron, so the Fe2+ content in deep groundwater was relatively high." - Have the Authors conducted studies on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? If so, where are the results of these studies and a description of the sampling/measurement methodology?

 

Line 326: "The environmental factors (DO, Eh, pH) ...) – Again. See my previous comment.

 

The Conclusion chapter contains virtually no conclusions, merely a repetition of information presented earlier. It is largely a superficial summary of the research conducted, rather than any conclusions drawn from it. Some statements are also completely incomprehensible and do not directly follow from the content of the paper and the presented research results. In light of the above comments, I believe the Summary chapter should be thoroughly revised, and I am not addressing the content of this chapter at this time.

 

References:

Harvey J.W., Wagner B.J., Bencala K.E. 1996. Evaluating the reliability of the stream tracer approach to characterize stream-sub-surface water exchange. Water Resources Research 32: 2441-2451, https://doi.org/10.1029/ 96WR01268.

Kotowski T., Najman J., Nowobilska-Luberda A., Bergel T. and Kaczor G., 2023. Analysis of the interaction between surface water and groundwater using gaseous tracers in a dynamic test at a riverbank filtration intake. Hydrological Processes, 37(4),  e14862, doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14862

Boano F., Harvey J.W., Marion A., Pack-man A.I., Revelli R., Ridolfi L., Wörman A. 2014. Hyporheic flow and transport processes: Mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Reviews of Geophysics 52: 603-679, https://doi. org/10.1002/2012RG000417

Author Response

Please review the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-structured and comprehensive study exploring microbial responses and redox zonation mechanisms in a river-recharged aquifer system along the Liaohe River. The topic is relevant to Water and offers valuable microbiological insights into Fe–Mn cycling under hydrodynamic influences. However, while the overall framework and data interpretation are solid, the manuscript would benefit from minor structural refinement, language polishing, and additional contextual discussion to strengthen clarity and scientific rigor.

The abstract is too long and descriptive. It should be condensed to emphasize objectives, methods, main findings, and implications

Avoid redundancy between the first and last sentences

Introduction

Some sentences are overly long and repetitive; simplify phrasing for readability

Authors should add should the knowledge gap

Maintain consistent use of italicized Latin names

Add a schematic conceptual diagram summarizing the Fe–Mn redox zonation and microbial interactions along the infiltration gradient.

 

Author Response

Please review the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Liaohe River is presented. The obtained results are important for hydrobiology and microbiology and of interest to readers. The sections Introduction, Material and Methods, and Results are detailed. The results are illustrated by clear figures and tables. I think that Figure 4 is very important for understanding the basic results of the study.

But some aspects of the MS are weak and require serious improvement before the publication.

I have several recommendations for the authors to consider.

Major issues:

1. Correct the MS according to the journal template, including the references list. Add sections for Author Contributions, Data Availability Statement, and Conflicts of Interest.
2. Add a discussion section.
3. The conclusion should be more detailed. You can discuss the importance of your study for science, and prospects of future research.
4. In the references list you have only old literature. Add at least 20 references published in the years 2021-2025.

Minor issues:

Lines 9-14: Too complex a sentence; divide it.

Keywords: Replace “microbial response” by other terms, which you didn’t mention in the title. “Draw water from a river nearby”—it is almost a sentence; please correct that.

Line 36, 197, 206, and further: “as ferromanganese [1]” - What does it mean?

Line 42: IRB

Line 45: Geobacter (genus name) should be italicized.

Line 78: Explain what “DO” and “Eh” mean.

Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.2. Add references for that section.

Lines 104-109: Correct the text alignment in the center.

Section 2.1.2: Add the table with the sample description (GPS, peculiar features). Explain howyou selected the samples for the study.

Lines 180-183: Transfer these sentences to the Material and Methods.

Lines 183-185: Correct to something like that: “During the study significant spatial inhomogeneity of species composition in streambed sediments and media with different infiltration paths in the study area was revealed (Figure 3).” You should not comment on the figure; you should stress the basic results of the investigation.

Lines 187-189 and further: Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteria should not be italicized, because they are phyla names. 

Lines 203-204 and further: Dechloromonas, Vogesella, Ferribacterium, Aqabacterium, Gallionella, Albidiferax, Limnohabitans, Hydrogenophaga, and other genera names should be italicized.

Figure 3: Improve resolution of the labels below the map.

Lines 222, 228, 238, and 313: What does the symbol at the end of the sentences mean?

Figure 4: Please, correct the color of the bacteria genera names; they are almost invisible.

Table 1: Add horizontal lines to the table.

Line 313: What does “RDA” mean?

Lines 352-354: “The dominant strains showed good correlation with Fe, Mn, and environmental factors (DO, Eh, and others) in groundwater.” You have used this sentence twice; correct that.

Author Response

Please review the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the Authors' responses and am impressed by the work they have done to improve their manuscript. The Authors' responses are comprehensive and clear, and the changes made to the manuscript are mostly appropriate. However, please pay more attention to terminology. In response to my comment on lines 91 and further, the Authors wrote: "..main replenishment method of groundwater." I suggest the term “recharge” instead of “replenishment”. I think it is worth checking the manuscript again for minor editing/stylistic errors.

The current version of the Introduction provides a much better introduction to the article's topic and, I believe, allows for a better understanding of it. However, please standardize the references (Boano, Kotowski, Jeong, etc.) in accordance with Water journal requirements.

Detailed comments:

Line 99:  In response to my comment at this line, the Authors wrote: “The production wells PW5 and PW6 are approximately 387 meters away from the riverbank”. OK. Now I understand, but the water inflowing to wells PW5 and PW6 is in fact a mixture of river water and groundwater, and what is more, it is simply an "inflow" (mainly horizontal/lateral) caused by water withdrawal, and NOT "infiltration" which in fact concerns the vertical migration/seepage of water from the ground surface into the aquifer system.

Overall, I have no further major critical comments and hope that my notices/comments will contribute to a better reception of this work in the hydrology community. Good luck with your future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper, titled "Microbial response of iron manganese biogeochemical processes in the subsurface flow zone to water intake from rivers," addresses an important topic for the hydrological community and an interesting area of ​​research. However, at this stage, it requires significant corrections and/or additions. Some sections of the text require additional commentary. Many sections of the paper (e.g., Chapter 2.1.1) are written in an overly confusing manner, contain terminological and factual errors, and are generally difficult for the reader to understand. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to simplify these chapters somewhat and write them more concisely, making them less confusing for the reader? I strongly suggest proofreading by a native speaker of the natural sciences.

 

Detailed comments are provided below, with individual line numbers.

 

Line 29: I am not convinced that the term "phreatic zone" refers to the zone of contact between surface and groundwater, as the Authors suggest. In my opinion, this is a broader concept and simply describes the subsurface region where all pores and fissures in the soil or rock are completely filled with water and lateral water flow dominates (also known as the saturation zone). In essence, this is simply part of the aquifer system. I suggest reconsidering the terminology used. This also applies to terms such as "observation holes" used by the Authors.

 

Lines 62-67: "...To investigate ..." – This sentence is too long and unclear.

 

Line 65: "submerged zone" – an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 78: Were any studies conducted on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? The Authors repeatedly mention the correlation of microbiological and physicochemical test results in the manuscript.

 

Line 85: "...water dynamics" – Again, an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Lines 91 and later: "The main recharge mode of groundwater is the lateral recharge of surface water, and the main seepage path of river water..." This sentence is too long and incomprehensible. Furthermore, much of the information presented here may be misleading.

 

Lines 93-95: On what basis did the Authors determine the groundwater flow paths described here? Is this based on hydrodynamic analysis, flow modeling (ModFlow or other tools), or other types of research?

 

Line 97: "...so it takes place at a more adequate time." - an unclear term. What does this actually mean?

 

Line 99: How can river water infiltrate within 350 meters of the riverbank?

 

The description of groundwater circulation conditions is very confusing, and in many parts, I seriously doubt its substantive accuracy. Overall, the description of the hydrogeological conditions of the study area is, in my opinion, overly simplified. This is quite surprising, since the work concerns groundwater. There is no groundwater table map of the aquifer(s), which could reflect the hydrodynamic conditions of the study area. The current nature of water flow/interaction between surface water and the groundwater system is unclear. A groundwater table map would be useful for a better understanding of the problem. In fact, the hydrogeological cross-section of the study area should be included in this chapter, not as Fig. 4 in Chapter "Discussion of Results." I believe this information is worth presenting in the manuscript because it represents the main focus of the authors' research. This is crucial for data analysis and interpretation.

 

Line 101: The authors indicate that samples were collected from the hyporheic zone, but the issues surrounding this zone and its importance in surface water/groundwater interactions are completely omitted from the manuscript. Overall, the review of scientific research on surface water/groundwater interactions is rather sparse. I believe the introduction (or elsewhere) could provide a more extensive discussion of the hyporheic zone, or more generally, surface water-groundwater interactions. Generally speaking, the key issue for surface water-groundwater interactions is the hydraulic relations between the river and the aquifer. It is worth noting that a broad approach is used to assess the extent of the riverwater-groundwater mixing zone, or the hyporheic zone itself. For example, Harvey et al. (1996) indicate that the river-groundwater mixing zone also includes "groundwater that has not reached the riverbed." Hyporheic flow, however, is usually distinguished from groundwater flowing into river channels due to its bidirectional nature—infiltration of river water into the bed and its return as a result of drainage as a mixture with groundwater (Boano et al., 2014). The mixing zone of surface water and groundwater can be characterized by complex flow and mixing conditions. For example, studies conducted using gaseous tracers (CFCs, SF6, noble gases) allowed for a better understanding of the nature of groundwater and surface water inflow and mixing in the hyporheic zone and an assessment of the dynamics of this process under natural and conditions disturbed by groundwater abstraction (Kotowski et al., 2023). These studies allowed, among other things, to determine the ratio of surface water to groundwater in the hyporheic zone and the extent of the hyporheic exchange zone. The water mixture in this zone may differ in terms of the content of abiotic/biotic components, both from river water and groundwater.

Line 128: „Samples of microorganisms in groundwater were collected from the river and …” - ??

 

Lines 129 and further: I also have a few questions regarding the groundwater sampling and  used methodology. It is unclear whether the samples originated from one or more aquifer systems. It is not known at all what depth the samples were collected from or at what depth the well's screen is located. The authors mention that sampling was conducted from observation wells. Were these wells pumped and flushed before sampling?

 

Line 179 and further: The information presented here regarding microorganisms is very extensive, but most of it is not used in further interpretation of the Authors' research results. I believe that the entire chapter could be significantly shortened without compromising the quality of the scientific communication.

 

Line 260-267: How did the Authors determine the geochemical evolution of groundwater during river water infiltration in the study area? And how does this relate to the structure and function of microbial communities? Are these conclusions based on the Authors' own observations, or perhaps the observations/conclusions of other authors? (citation issue?).

 

Lines 266-267: "Therefore, microorganisms in the environment have a certain response pattern to the redox subzone" – Again. What is the basis for this statement?

 

Line 278: "…a good correlation" - ?? What is the R or R2 value of this correlation?

 

Lines 306-307: "As analyzed earlier, the effective form of manganese content in deep water containing medium 306 was lower than that of iron, so the Fe2+ content in deep groundwater was relatively high." - Have the Authors conducted studies on the physicochemical parameters of groundwater and river water? If so, where are the results of these studies and a description of the sampling/measurement methodology?

 

Line 326: "The environmental factors (DO, Eh, pH) ...) – Again. See my previous comment.

 

The Conclusion chapter contains virtually no conclusions, merely a repetition of information presented earlier. It is largely a superficial summary of the research conducted, rather than any conclusions drawn from it. Some statements are also completely incomprehensible and do not directly follow from the content of the paper and the presented research results. In light of the above comments, I believe the Summary chapter should be thoroughly revised, and I am not addressing the content of this chapter at this time.

 

References:

Harvey J.W., Wagner B.J., Bencala K.E. 1996. Evaluating the reliability of the stream tracer approach to characterize stream-sub-surface water exchange. Water Resources Research 32: 2441-2451, https://doi.org/10.1029/ 96WR01268.

Kotowski T., Najman J., Nowobilska-Luberda A., Bergel T. and Kaczor G., 2023. Analysis of the interaction between surface water and groundwater using gaseous tracers in a dynamic test at a riverbank filtration intake. Hydrological Processes, 37(4),  e14862, doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14862

Boano F., Harvey J.W., Marion A., Pack-man A.I., Revelli R., Ridolfi L., Wörman A. 2014. Hyporheic flow and transport processes: Mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Reviews of Geophysics 52: 603-679, https://doi. org/10.1002/2012RG000417

Author Response

Please review the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected the MS according to the reviewers' recommendations. It is obvious, that they are hard on paper improvements. But please, correct only several errors:

1. Replace “Fe and Mn” in the keyword with other terms.
2. Correct the font of “DO-Dissolved Oxygen, Eh-Oxidation-Reduction Potential” (lines 94-95, 346-347).

Author Response

Please review the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf