True 2-D Resistivity Imaging from Vertical Electrical Soundings to Support More Sustainable Rural Water Supply Borehole Siting in Malawi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author:

    I have read your research in detail. This research acquiring the multiple vertical electrical soundings (VES) that are inverted together in 2-D to give a true cross section of subsurface resistivity is a good idea. Overall, it is a very good case study, and there would be many developments in the future. 

However, I think there are several aspects of your research that need to be clarified or strengthened. Please explain or confirm the following questions:

1. The references in the past five years on VES and 2D ERT is lacking , while there are many references on hydrogeology.EX: Line 86-88.
2. In Section 2.2, it is too descriptive, and part of the content can be simplified or deleted appropriately, such as Section 2.2.1-2.2.5.
3. In Section 2.3 and 2.4, it is too descriptive, and part of the content can be simplified or deleted appropriately.
4. The resolution of Fig 6(a) is not good, please confirm whether the depth of Fig 6(b) is correct, and the two pictures of Fig 6(a) and Fig 6(b) can be combined into one picture.
5. The resolution of Fig 7(a) is not good, please confirm whether the depth of Fig 7(b) is correct, and the two pictures ofFig 7(a) and Fig 7(b) can be combined into one picture.
6. The resolution of Fig 8(a) is not good, please confirm whether the depth of Fig 8(b) is correct, and the two pictures ofFig 8(a) and Fig 8(b) can be combined into one picture.
7. The resolution of Fig 9(a) is not good, please confirm whether the depth of Fig 9(b) is correct, and the two pictures ofFig 9(a) and Fig 9(b) can be combined into one picture.
8. In Section 4 discussion, it is too descriptive, and part of the content can be simplified or deleted appropriately, especially the test procedure need not to be described too much, such as 4.1.2.
9. You can add the drilling data into the Fig 6(b) Fig 7(b) Fig 8(b) Fig 9(b) for comparison.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good practical work!

- Fig.1, с – letters a, a’, b, b’ are used but not explained

- Fig.4 – font size in the field of the Figure should be increased for better readability. Some numbers of electrodes in the circles are not readable.

- Str.290, 293 – not explained what is “n”? it must be clear from the text, not only from the Supplementary Materials.

-Fig.6,7,8,9 – it is better to use symbols of the same size and color for marks of sounding points

- Fig.9 and Fig.11 – may be, no sence to present sequential interpretations; it’s sufficient to give the final one, and leave one figure?

It is a pity that no confirmation of presented interpretations of geoelectrical sections from drilling data was obtained. It would be better to explain "why?"

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf