Chemometrics of the Environment: Hydrochemical Characterization of Groundwater in Lioua Plain (North Africa) Using Time Series and Multivariate Statistical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript analyzes the chemical composition of Lioua’s groundwater using chemometric techniques (multivariate statistical analysis & time series methods) to determine the geological processes influencing the chemical elements’ composition and origin.

The methods are appropriate, the scope and the impact are moderate.

The result presentation needs to be improved, and some missing methods should be added, e.g. sample analysis experimental details, statistical analysis in Materials and Methods, for improving reproducibility. The Conclusion is overly long and English usage needs to be improved for clarity.

A major revision is suggested before further consideration in Sustainability.

More points to be addressed:

-        The originality of the figures is not clear. The ones that the authors did not make themselves should have proper references.

-        Figure 1, the resolution of the figure requires improvement specifically the 2 maps at the bottom.

-        Figure 3, the table is not well-made in that the vertical lines are not straight.

-        Figure 4 is missing in the document.

-        Figure 5 & 6, the text is too small for the reader

-        Figure 13, the resolution of the figure requires improvement.

-        Consider placing some results in the supporting information; the total length of the article is long for a research article (26 pages).

-        Generally, the resolutions of the figures must be enhanced as some have very small text which makes interpretation difficult for the readers.

-        The English requires minor revisions such as overuse of commas and wording.

-        Use of commas after the word ‘and’

-        Check the use of tenses.

-        Some sentences should be rewritten for clarity. E.g. Introduction, L114: ‘The main aim of the study….’, L117: ‘The techniques described were used….’

-        In the conclusion, line 760: ‘The results presented in this study demonstrates the potential of chemometric methods applied to hydrochemistry.’

-        WTW multiparameter is an instrument? The product information is missing.

-        Introduction of more equations in Discussion is somehow “delayed” and does not contribute to the integrity of the study. Please consider moving to supporting information.

Author Response

We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #1 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how each comment was addressed; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that this paper can provide scientific evidences useful in public health. The answers are provided in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript applied chemometrics techniques to analyze the chemical composition of Lioua’s groundwater in order to determine the geological process influencing the chemical elements composition and origin. In general, this study is interesting and has enough data and deep analyses, but the way to discuss the results should be improved. Specific comments can be found below.

 

(1) L32-34 may be just say SO42-, K+, Ca2+, and TDS have a close association instead of G1. The current sentence is more like a results demonstration. The same with G2 and G3. I guess G1 stand for group 1.

(2) Current abstract contains full of data and make it confusing. Maybe combine some sentences to make it more logical and easy to understand.

 

(3) The main issue is the discussion section. Currently, one parameter or one analysis (like PCA) has one paragraph. I suggested to build a logical line to tell the story instead of just listed all the results. 

Author Response

We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #2 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how each comment was addressed; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that this paper can provide scientific evidences useful in public health. The responses are provided in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the majority of the issues raised during the 1st reveiewing stage. The overall quality and conherence are adequate for publicaiton. Thus, acceptance for publication is recommended after very minor modification.

Just one more suggestion regarding the figures "redrawn by the authors." Since the authors must have gotten the idea from some source. This source must be referenced. 

Supplementary Material is missing some essential items: the title and author list, as Supplementary Material to "Title", then the author list.

Author Response

We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #1 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The table below presents in detail how each comment was addressed; the references are to the final line numbers of the revised article. In addition, the added or changed text of the manuscript was marked using “track changes” of Microsoft Word. We believe that this paper can provide scientific evidences useful in public health.

 

Comment of Reviewer #1	Response	Reference w/track changes
The authors have addressed the majority of the issues raised during the 1st reveiewing stage. The overall quality and conherence are adequate for publicaiton. Thus, acceptance for publication is recommended after very minor modification.	We are very grateful for your time, your positive outcome and for all your comments, as they have improved the text and helped to understand our study more properly. Please find below our responses to each of your comments.	N/A
Just one more suggestion regarding the figures "redrawn by the authors." Since the authors must have gotten the idea from some source. This source must be referenced.	We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this issue. It was corrected as suggested	Line 182 Line 203 Line 233-234
Supplementary Material is missing some essential items: the title and author list, as Supplementary Material to "Title", then the author list.	Again, many thanks are addressed to the respected reviewer for this specific comment. Consequently, supplementary material was corrected as suggested.	Supplementary material

 

Again, thank you for your time. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                           The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments on the revised manuscript.

Author Response

We want to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer #2 for the time dedicated to the review and the comprehensive, profound, and constructive remarks, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript in the previous round. Thank you.