Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the proposed research authors presented a new monitoring and simulation of pollutants using FloPy. Even though the problem that the study deals with is very important to the field of groundwater research, certain shortcomings must be corrected.

1. Check for typos throughout the manuscript. Besides, "Error! Reference source not found." appears in several places, so correct it.

2. In the first two paragraphs of the introduction part, write less about the models themselves, give a short introduction about it, and focus more on their application so far and what has been achieved with it.

3. Emphasize why it is important to monitor contaminants, and what exactly is being monitored, which contaminations.

4. Emphasize the scientific contribution of this study in relation to existing ones.

5. In line 129, provide an additional description of which industry and which pollutants it generates.

6. Explain why the focus of the study is only on manganese.

7. Figures must be of better quality.

8. Can the authors compare the results obtained with this model, with previous studies?

9. Within the results and discussion, more specific conclusions based on the obtained results are missing.

Minor corrections to English are needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present research includes a broad and complete study on the traceability processes of contaminants, through the application of a novel mathematical model, in a specific study area (a Chemical Park in China). The structure of the study is appropriate and adapts to the standards established in the Journal. In the same way, it includes substantial graphic and mathematical material, which serves as an argumentative basis for the research (as well as an important bibliographical base); although, in order to improve the publication, it is recommended to expand the analysis and commentary of the information collected in the “Results and discussion” section (that is, of the different subsections; 4.1. Groundwater flow model optimization results, 4.2. Simulation-optimization model results,…), linking what is collected in the mathematical model and the tables and figures of the entire work, with the results obtained and specified in the results section. Finally, indicate that there is an “errata” in the “Results” section, so the text that says “Table 4Error! Reference source not found”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      Novelty of the manuscript must be better emphasized.

2.      Can you provide more details on the numerical models used in this study, and how they were validated?

4.      The discussion section seems to be lacking in depth and analysis. Can you provide more insights and interpretations of the results, and how they relate to previous studies in the field?

5.      Keywords can be revised with good novel words.

6.      The conclusion section could be strengthened by summarizing the main contributions of this study and their significance for future research and practical applications. Can you provide a more comprehensive and impactful conclusion?

7.      Comparing the results of this study to previous research in the field to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

8.      Mention some qualitative results in abstract section.

9.      Addressing potential limitations or weaknesses of the study and discussing how they could be addressed in future research.

10.  Providing more detailed explanations of the methodology and procedures used in the study to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

The language in some parts of the manuscript is unclear and difficult to follow. Can you revise these sections to improve readability and comprehension?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors corrected Manuscript so now it can be considered for publication.