Deep Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Geophysical Investigations: The State of the Art and Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript has 14 pages, 37 references, 11 figures. The present study reviews the most important scientific results obtained with the Electrical Resistivity Tomography method in exploring geological environments with investigation depth greater than 200m for several places in Europe, especially in Italy. Authors focused on presenting the colorful ERT 2D and 3D inversion models results for volcano site and boreholes etc.
Deep Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Geophysical Investigations: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions.
The review title, in my opinion, lacks the geographical linkage. I see only case studies from Italy, Switzerland. There are much more examples (in Argentina, Brasilia, Russia, China like [37] etc.). Therefore, I suggest adding in the title "European continent". Even in the references, I see “Germany”. Or you can add for the review more spread areas after [6-10]. Maybe also add time level (as there are previous papers with similar titles e.g. Günther, Thomas & Rücker, Carsten. (2012). Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) in geophysical applications - state of the art and future challenges. I mostly see here Italian research, however this method is widely used and published by international society. Because there are some references below for examples:
Tarasov V.A., Lukhmanov V.L. Deep Resistivity and IP Tomography for Ore Exploration // European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. Source: Conference Proceedings, Engineering and Mining Geophysics 2018, Apr 2018, Volume 2018, p.1 – 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201800534
Piskunova E.A., Palshin N.A., & Yakovlev D.V. (2018). Electrical conductivity features of the Arctic shelf permafrost and electromagnetic technologies for their studies. Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, 18 (5), 1-14.
Sherman, D., & Constable, S. (2018). Permafrost extent on the Alaskan Beaufort shelf from surface-towed controlled-source electromagnetic surveys. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123, 7253–7265. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015859 .
Mazzini, Adriano, et al. "3D deep electrical resistivity tomography of the Lusi eruption site in East Java." Geophysical Research Letters 48.18 (2021): e2021GL092632.
Why in keywords there is no “Electrical Resistivity Tomography”, because Tomography could be seismic or medical.
CO2 storage – CO2 bottom index.
Kilometers everywhere with small letters km.
Figure 1. where the citation in the text?
Section 2 title. I am not agree with the “and inversion”. There is no examples of inversion here. Only starting from line 228 I see first mention about inversion algorithm.
Line 96. The first time mention the FFT-related. This is abbreviation for Fast Fourier Transform. So need this explanation here. Maybe, authors could add more info about K a geometrical factor values for DERT or formulae about the depth connection with the DERT frequencies/profile length.
Figure 2 cite [20]. However, it is too early. Should be reference numbered with [14]. Because here is the sequential numbering.
Line 177 Colella et. al., 2004 [18] – excessive point after et. Line 209 Balasco et al. (comma) 2011 [23]
Line 205 point at the end.
Line 214 Wenner-alpha, but in Figure 8 Wenner alpha without hyphen. Please, try to use unique names.
The fist mention about geophysical equipment in line 241 “A multi-electrode 2D device by means of the ABEM Terrameter SAS-4000 instrument connected to ABEM ES1064 C multiplexer”, in line 276 “Fullwaver instrument of the Iris company” and line 309 “Iris VIP 10000 electrical transmitter”. In my opinion, authors may briefly say about the instrumentation in the section 2. Deep ERT method: data measurement and data processing. Saying some examples (most applicable in Europe) are on-land electric streamers and borehole DС tools. And give some examples. This will be helpful for readers to read the part from page 7.
Line 318 “robust DOI quantitative analysis”. Please, decipher abbreviation DOI.
Line 425 Author Contributions: the sentence “For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided” should be deleted.
Conclusions section. The sentence “limitations concerning the applications are presenting” is vague. Could you, please, write more clear-cut the most important (obvious) imitation, e.g. elevation landscape variations, array configuration distortion or what?
Reference style looks like ok, but everywhere I see different styles and mistakes. [7] https://doi.org/..., but [8] doi: look also [31] http://dx.doi. org/10.1126/ science.aau0323; [21, 25, 26]. Do you need to specify [3] and [4] with 1996a and 1996b for Loke, M.H.; Barker, R.D., if they have already different numbers.
[10] authors’ names is written with comma. But [4] with semicolon. [15] authors’ names is written with “and” before the last, but others without.
[15] wrong, because vol., no. , pp.
[16] line 468 “18 307±18 321”m, maybe “18, 307-321”.
Etc. So, please, check it carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is enlarged significantly. I appreciate more theory in section 2. However, I still don't agree with the title, as I see the references and examples only from the European continent. So I advise adding this geographical limitation to the manuscript title.
In opinion, the text is made "in a hurry" and is not accurate. The authors need to check it carefully. Some examples:
points in the end of title and metadata are not necessary
figure 1 (left) has bad quality and is moved on the figure caption
all units should be spaced with values 5-20 A , 5 sec, 5 km, 5 min, 500 m etc.
Line 164 - € (?)
Figure 2. а panel is not marked in figure body
Figure 6 I don't understand orientation (arrow from top to bottom). How it is? Also meters are not indicated.
I also don't like, that in figures I see units Ohm*m, but in the text Ωm. I understand that it is the same, but still it doesn't help me.
Line 308 point.
Line 597 32sec).
Figure 12 caption is missed. When I copy lines 583-584 surprisingly I can see "resistivities below 2.5 Ohm.m underneath the active vents highlight the area of collapse (dashed 583 black arrows). The red-shaded area indicates the Watukosek fault system that intersects Lusi. [34]."
Line 657 signals [405-42] ? Should be [40-42].
References still have many stylistic mistakes. At least, [3] and [4] with 1996a and 1996b for Loke, M.H.; Barker, R.D., they have already different numbers, not need to point a and b. I see different font sizes, "and" between surnames, "vol." Year style should be bold text, etc. Please, keep the MDPI format and style.
Author Response
see att
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
