Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Water That Is Fit to Play in

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well presented commentary noting the importance of investing in robust, reliable long term monitoring for water quality and public health risk management in urban areas. The main heads of argument are clearly presented and the point is made cogently.  

I missed a sense of the geographic variability of issues - where data sets are extremely sparse and infrastructure patchy or absent, the approach to improving water quality and reducing public health risk might necessarily need to be less ambitious in the first instance.  I got the sense that this commentary speaks primarily to the European/UK context, but in fact the general heads of argument are universally applicable, while specific moves to improve our data base might vary depending on the maturity and absorbtive capacity of regulators and service providers. Perhaps an additional sentence near the start to clarify the positionality of the commentary and a closing reflection on the global nature of the key arguments but need to use slightly different approaches in different contexts would be a useful additional framing. 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

This is a well presented commentary noting the importance of investing in robust, reliable long term monitoring for water quality and public health risk management in urban areas. The main heads of argument are clearly presented and the point is made cogently.  

I missed a sense of the geographic variability of issues - where data sets are extremely sparse and infrastructure patchy or absent, the approach to improving water quality and reducing public health risk might necessarily need to be less ambitious in the first instance.  I got the sense that this commentary speaks primarily to the European/UK context, but in fact the general heads of argument are universally applicable, while specific moves to improve our data base might vary depending on the maturity and absorbtive capacity of regulators and service providers. Perhaps an additional sentence near the start to clarify the positionality of the commentary and a closing reflection on the global nature of the key arguments but need to use slightly different approaches in different contexts would be a useful additional framing.

Response: We changed the introducing and concluding sentences of the opinion as suggested by the reviewer (lines 21 and 89-92).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Human interaction with urban water bodies is increasing, thus raising public health issues. In order to reliably assess public health risks and control water pollution in cities, the authors integrate research in recent years and make recommendations that are relevant to existing problems. I believe that this manuscript can be accepted by the journal after revision. Therefore, l suggest the following revisions to the manuscript.

1. In the abstract, please state the purpose, methodology, conclusions and future perspectives of this manuscript.
2. Even though this manuscript is of the review type, its main body should include an introduction, body and conclusion.
3. Lines 38-39: A few examples in the paragraph here do not seem to reflect the fact that urban water quality is highly variable between locations, and the writer could have enriched this point.
4. In the third paragraph of the main body of the manuscript, the authors mention a number of analytical methods for water quality monitoring, but describe them in general terms. It is recommended that the authors include literature on the application of these methods to provide a clearer description of the methods.
5. Lack of logical connection between parts of the text: authors may use transition sentences to link paragraphs or use appropriate methods to make the manuscript flow logically.
6. The conclusion of the manuscript should include: summaring the laws of the field, clarifying unresolved issues, and suggesting future directions.
7. There are fewer references in the manuscript, only 13, and the authors should compile more references to support this manuscript. I recommend that authors cite at least 20 references from the last five years .

Author Response

Comment 1: In the abstract, please state the purpose, methodology, conclusions and future perspectives of this manuscript.

Response: This is an opinion piece and as such does not follow the traditional introduction/methods/results/conclusions structure. However, I have made changes to the abstract to provide a more succinct synopsis of the opinion piece.

Comment 2: Even though this manuscript is of the review type, its main body should include an introduction, body and conclusion.

Response: This is an opinion piece, not a review, and as such does not follow the traditional introduction/methods/results/conclusions structure. However, I revised the piece to bring out the structure more clearly, and each paragraph formulates separate conclusions for each of the topics covered (history, gaps in regulations, new monitoring/modelling opportunities and challenges, the human factor). 

Comment 3: Lines 38-39: A few examples in the paragraph here do not seem to reflect the fact that urban water quality is highly variable between locations, and the writer could have enriched this point.

Response: Reviewer 1 made a similar comment. In response I have added sentences at the end of the piece to explain that authorities will have to consider the local status quo and public health protection priorities (lines 89-92).

Comment 4: In the third paragraph of the main body of the manuscript, the authors mention a number of analytical methods for water quality monitoring, but describe them in general terms. It is recommended that the authors include literature on the application of these methods to provide a clearer description of the methods.

Response: I have added additional literature citations to innovative water quality monitoring applications in this paragraph which reference further method details as described in the literature. 

Comment 5: Lack of logical connection between parts of the text: authors may use transition sentences to link paragraphs or use appropriate methods to make the manuscript flow logically.

Response: I have change the wording so that the concluding sentence of each paragraph now introduces the topic of the next paragraph. Paragraph 1 now introduces legislation as the topic of paragraph 2, paragraph 2 introduces monitoring and modelling as the topic of paragraph 3, and paragraph 3 introduces human behaviour as the topic of paragraph 4.

Comment 6: The conclusion of the manuscript should include: summaring the laws of the field, clarifying unresolved issues, and suggesting future directions.

Response: Each paragraph summarizes my opinion of what issues for urban water quality are to be resolved and then discusses ways to address them in the future. I have added a concluding paragraph that looks beyond the European context which I am most familiar with and acknowledges the need for locally appropriate solutions in different parts of the World, whilst stating that sharing lessons learned and international cooperation is essential for achieving the global goal of sustainable management of water for all.

Comment 6: There are fewer references in the manuscript, only 13, and the authors should compile more references to support this manuscript. I recommend that authors cite at least 20 references from the last five years .

Response: I have added more references to the opinion piece and the total number is now 22.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author submitted an opinion on the management of urban water quality, focusing on health risks caused by microbial contamination. The reviewer believes that the following revisions may make the opinion more appropriate.

 

1) The problem of combined sewer overflows has been recognized by both engineers and governments. Several plans for the improvement of combined sewer systems have been implemented. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

 

2) Higher intensity and frequency of precipitation (rainfall) are expected due to global warming. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

 

3) The health risks associated with eating raw fish and shellfish have been quantified in countries where this practice is common. The contribution of combined sewer systems to the contamination of fish has been considered. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

Author Response

Comment 1: The problem of combined sewer overflows has been recognized by both engineers and governments. Several plans for the improvement of combined sewer systems have been implemented. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

Response: I have added a reference to major government investment plans to upgrade aging urban drainage infrastructures (lines 40-41).

2) Higher intensity and frequency of precipitation (rainfall) are expected due to global warming. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

Response: I added a reference to predicted changes in weather patterns that are caused by climate change (line 60).

3) The health risks associated with eating raw fish and shellfish have been quantified in countries where this practice is common. The contribution of combined sewer systems to the contamination of fish has been considered. The author is advised to mention this aspect.

Response: I added a reference to foodborne exposure to waterborne hazards (line 76).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the authors' revision notes and the revised manuscript in response to the review comments, I believe that the authors have adequately responded to all the review comments and have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. The revised paper has a more rigorous structure, complete experimental data, and clear logic of argumentation, and is ready for publication. The manuscript is recommended for acceptance.