Influence of the Construction of the Urdinbide Road Tunnel on the Autzagane Aquifer in Biscay (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled” Influence of the construction of the Urdinbide road tunnel on the Autzagane aquifer” provides research hydrogeological research for the construction of a road tunnel. I understand the great effort of the authors, however, a lot of information about the study area is missing. In general, the manuscript looks like a more technical report rather than a research paper. I would like to mention some improvements for the future publication of the manuscript.

My recommendation is rejection.

 

General comments

-Avoid using keywords that are already in the title.

-Please correct grammar and syntax issues. Academic writing is missing.

-Abstract: mention the importance of this work and real results.

-Introduction: Eliminate lines 40-42 and add a paragraph about tunnel constructions in the world mentioning other work and research approaches. Begin the introduction with a paragraph providing the gaps and the importance of the current work. Are there any other papers about the area mentioning the importance of tunnel construction etc? Provide in detail the importance of your work. Mention why the Autzagane aquifer is so interesting. Are there any other research on similar aquifers in the world? 

-Figure 1: Add a country map to show the region. Add a coordinate system. Add the streams.

-Figure 2: Please improve the figure. Add water level and geological formations around the tunnel.

-Please add some geological sections to improve the chapter on geological characteristics and mention the aquifer types that appeared in the area.

-Figure 5: Eliminate the photos.

-Lines 184-185: Have been recorded any flood episodes?

-Lines 186-194: The discharge is not clear. Are there also karst aquifers in the area? Where are these springs?

-The chapter on material and methods has to be rewritten. Try not to separate the text into a lot of subchapters (until 2.3.4).

-Why MODFLOW model was chosen? Mention why this model is better for this approach rather than others.  

-Line 287: Please mention what hydrogeological monitoring means.

-Figure12. Please explain the different color lines.

-Results: Please improve this chapter. For instance,  lines 309-313 can be in a discussion. Still this part looks like a technical report. In results provide the real results and be specific and provide quantitative results.

-Provide the innovation of this work.

 

-References are poor. 

Please correct grammar and syntax issues. Academic writing is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the manuscript titled “ Influence of the construction of the Urdinbide road tunnel on the Autzagane aquifer". The Authors described how to preserve the natural hydrogeological functioning of the aquifer after the construction of the tunnel. The waterproofing system used not only preserved the aquifer, but also the original drainage points that are the source of the Ategorri stream. The construction of the tunnel was difficult and important because the tunnel goes through the Autzagane aquifer. This important aquifer is ocated within the hydrogeological area of the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve, one of the most important in the Iberian Peninsula, and it is also used as a source of drinking water for some urban areas in the municipality of Amorebieta-Etxano.

The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field. The data contained in tables and figures represent understandable documentation of the research problem. Cited references are relevant to the presented problem however, most are not recent publications (from the last 5 years). Material is presented properly in the context of a scientific problem, but I suggest remodeling the scheme of the article. I suggest extending the "Results" section by providing, for example, information from section 2.3.1 and adding the "Conclusions".

I suggest a few optional correction before publishing.

1. I propose to add a figure with the location of the study area with neighboring regions or countries (with names of cities, rivers). It is worth adding information about the location in the title of the article.

2. In the "Introduction", it is worth defining the purpose of the article.

3. In this issue, hydrogeological conditions are very important, it is worth describing them in more detail and adding a hydrogeologcal cross-section.

4. I suggest adding explanations to Figs: 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12.

5. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 - they are too small and hard to read.

6. Incorrect  numbering of figures - Figure no. 9 appears twice.

I am convinced that the article will be interest to the scientific community and after considering the above suggestions, I recommend publication. The paper has interesting results and will make a useful contribution to Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work under review raises one of the most important topics of underground construction. Impact of tunneling on adjacent horizons. The authors consider the impact of tunnel construction on the aquifer (drinking) horizon. The article has a technical focus. The writing style of the introduction and conclusions is not correct (I will indicate below). The article is well structured, however, it does not have a sufficiently complete background (I will indicate below). Graphic material is sufficient and allows you to judge the work done.

1. The background of the study is not fully considered in the introduction. The author needs to add more extended information to the introduction section with a review of an additional 15-20 literary sources. I recommend the author to include in the review the critically important works on this topic:

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040770

https://doi.org/CTS53513.2021.9562910.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ElConRus54750.2022.9755601

I also recommend that the author use the search engine mdpi.com or www.researchgate.net to select links.

2. After the introduction, the author needs to clearly formulate the task of the study. In this case, the author implies one task, and according to the conclusions, 3 conclusions were obtained.

3. In paragraph 2.3.4, the author speaks of "conceptual modeling" according to generally accepted norms. A conceptual model is a model built on the basis of system analysis methods and the construction of a Pareto diagram. The author needs either to define what is meant by a “conceptual model” in his work, or to add multivariate analysis and the construction of a Pareto chart to the article.

4. The conclusions do not correspond to the initially set tasks.

5. The "References" section should contain at least 35-40 sources. The author needs to expand the list of references. This must be done through the links above and other works found in the recommended search engines.

 

In general, I will characterize the work as positive. The work clearly shows the scientific and practical significance of the work. After eliminating the above shortcomings, I will recommend the work for printing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved according to the reviewers' comments. 

My recommendation is acceptance. 

Academic writing is missing.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been corrected.