Evaluation of Groundwater in the Coastal Portion of Guasave, Sinaloa for White Shrimp Farming (Penaeus vannamei) through VES, Chemical Composition, and Survival Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed article deals with VES, chemical composition of groundwater in the coastal portion of Guasave, Sinaloa, and evaluation of groundwater for white shrimp farming by survival tests.

Generally, the authors carried out the correct analysis of VES, hydrochemical data, however, in some cases there is a certain insufficiency. The water parameter is not include SO₄^2-, HCO₃^-, and other metals（Cu²⁺, Zn²⁺, Pb²⁺, As³⁺, Cd²⁺,etc）. Also, the chemical types of groundwater in the study area are not given by using Piper diagram.

Considering the contained material, the article actually concerns mainly the relations of VES to Ro-Rw relation, and the Rw-ionic concentrations. In general, regional geology and geochemistry are the main influencing factors to groundwater. But, there is no information on the depth of the groundwater sampling; It would be worth to add information about the position of aquifers in a vertical profile (e.g. in the form of hydrogeological cross-section) in the study area.

Some other suggestions:

1)Line104: “nutrients (NO3, NO2, K+, NH4, PO4)”，may be better to present such as：NO₃^-，NO₂^-, NH₄ ⁺, PO₄^3-.

2)Table2: No.1 CE(mS/cm), should be "EC"?

3) It is suggested to have in-depth Discussion in subsections to improve the logic of the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW COMMENTS

Evaluation of Groundwater in the Coastal Portion of Guasave, 2 Sinaloa for White Shrimp Farming (Penaeus vannamei) through 3 VES, Chemical Composition, and Survival Tests

Mauro Espinoza Ortiz et al.

The manuscript of Ortiz et al. presents the potential of white shrimp farming with groundwater from the coastal 23 aquifer of Guasave, Sinaloa.

I think that this paper helps researchers who want to know the aquaculture and food sources of environment between groundwater and sea water interaction areas.

However, there are many errors about formatting and typo. It would be good to first correct the formal error and then look at the paper. Moreover, Conclusions part is ambiguous. Please, rewrite your conclusions more specifically.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

it is a pity that the authors made only measurements of Rw-ions in waters without any selected microcomponent, including SO₄^2-, HCO₃^-, and other metals（Cu²⁺, Zn²⁺, Pb²⁺, As³⁺, Cd²⁺）. Then the assessment of water quality isn’t more complete.

Reviewer 2 Report

After the first revision round, the revised article has improved. The paper is interesting and worthy of publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.