Karst Brackish Springs of Albania
Matej Blatnik
John Puffer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a nice overview on the most important karst brackish springs in Albania, which were so far described and analyzed separately. Springs are described from different perspectives, such as their catchments (geomorphology, hydro-geology and climate) and also chemical composition of water, which was analyzed during different occasions in the past. There are also some scientific interpretations, which were mostly focused on hydrochemical composition of water and reasons for obtained results during analysis.
Paper is nicely written and readable, but there are also some shortcomings:
- Abstract and introduction could include more clear description, what is the main goal of the study. After reading the whole paper, the most clear information is findable in the conclusion, lines 394-396: “With the goal to contribute to improve such a knowledge, the present article provides significant information and data about the main brackish springs in Albania, which were previously scattered in local publications and reports.”
- Some figures need new captions, especially Figures 7 and 11 (wrong captions). Some of them can get clearer descriptions, some also corrections in legends (see comments below).
- It would be good to make a proof of a complete English text. Right now everything is understandable, but it can be better.
More information in PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments and remarks,
- The paper deals with interesting topic. Anyway, the quality of the paper can be further improved.
- All geographical names appearing in the text should also be shown on maps.
- Unify the names of individual areas and sources throughout the text, on maps and in tables. Different versions are now appearing, which introduces confusion.
- Some data in the table 1 are very old, more than 60 years.
- All records of chemical compounds (text, table, figures) should be done using subscript, like SO4 not SO4.
- Please, consider also corrections, marked text and comments in the pdf file.
Date of this review: 28 June 2022
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Karst brackish springs of Albania" by Romeo Eftimi and others, as the title implies, is a review of the hydrology of each of the Karst brackish springs of Albania. It is informative and interesting but not much new was presented or anything unusual. Considerable data was assembled and sorted out into categories, but it is a bit disappointing that no geologic or environmental applications of the data were proposed. The biggest disappointment was the conclusions section where absolutely nothing meaningful was said. I would strongly suggest that the revision of this manuscript includes a list of each of the fact-based points that can be extracted that are important or potentially important. A few important points are listed in the second half of the abstract but should be clarified and supported in the conclusions. A line-by-line list of suggested edits follows:
Line 74 – The main feature common to each of these ("Springs in salt deposits") springs is the gypsum. Table 1 list only 5, 7.6, and 0.16 mg/l Cl content for a few of them but SO4 concentrations of about 1300 mg/l. So why not describe the group as "Springs in gypsum deposits". The chemistry of the water from the Bashaj, Smokthin spring is completely different with huge Cl values and should be listed separately although none of the rocks listed on Table 1 include halite or rock-salt.
Line 81 – What is Korab? Is it the name of a rock formation, a geographic province, or what? There are other cases throughout the manuscript where names are given without any explanation of what is being named.
Line 114 – Table 1 is the most important part of the manuscript but is confusing. The first thing I looked for was a division of the table into 1. Springs in salt (gypsum) deposits and 2. Coastal springs, as described in the text. But no such grouping is made. The second confusion is the first column labeled "Number (Fig 1)" but there are no numbers, just names of some undefined object. Third; The caption reads "C" but there is no column labeled "C" Fourth; There is abundant "MbTh (mg/l)" data, but you need to define MbTh. You have plotted the data in Figure 11 but do not describe the significance of it anywhere in the text. Why did you collect MbTh data? Fifth; all the numbers are interesting but would be much more meaningful if they could be compared with typical ocean water, and rainwater as in Figure 11 or even more meaningful with KML (Maximum Permissible Limit for drinking water. Some KLM data is provided on lines 318 and 319 but it would be useful to add to the bottom of Table 1 together with rain and ocean water values.
Line 241-245 – Define "underwater resources". Underwater water? This is potentially very confusing. I think I know what you intend but it is very poorly described.
Line 317 – This is important but KML values for each of the ions that you measured should be moved to the beginning of the manuscript for comparison and should be added to Table 1.
Figure 11. – First; the caption is the wrong caption; please revise. Second, Define MbTh and its significance. Third; The top of the Figure 11a complex triangle is not labeled. This is a very confusing set of shapes to interpret. Fourth; Sea coast springs butrint should be capitalized. Fifth; Define T(Uje) on Figure 11h and its significance. There is nothing in the text about most of the plots. You need to explain why each of the plots are significant.
Lines 361 to 368 are important, and the idea should be listed as one of your conclusions and should also be expanded upon using Fig. 11a through Fig 11h. It is the most interesting and important interpretation of the entire manuscript.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the manuscript by Romeo Eftimi and others is a big improvement over the first draft. It quite adequately incorporates each of the suggestions and corrections that I made. I, therefore, will recommend acceptance to the Editor.
