The Effects of Spill Pressure on the Migration and Remediation of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Aquifers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled Efectsof spill pressure on migration and remediation of DNAPL in homogeneous and heterogeneous aquifers is very well written and presented manuscript. The authors have done extensive work to explore Optimization and effective usage of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation technique. However, there are minor comments that can be considered to improve the manuscript:

 

1、The text in the introduction part must be properly referenced.

2、Further explanation is needed for the coordinate axes of Figures 1, 2, and 4

3、Conclusions part can be improved

 

I would suggest additional attention to grammar and redundancy in every chapter.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file "Response_to_Separations_Reviewer 1_R1.pdf" in which we have given a point-by-point response to Reviewer #1's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the item results and discussion, the authors often use adjectives for the analysis of quantitative values. Therefore, I ask you to insert the quantitative values in the text. Please, insert the values in all item of results and discussion. I think it will be a better understanding of the research work.

Examples:

Line 200-201: The scenarios 200 have bigger (XXXXX) PCE plume and infiltrate faster in the vertical direction.

Line 204-205: As time goes on, PCE plume becomes bigger (XXX) and bigger (xxx)

Lines 240-241The scenarios with higher spill pressure (XXXXX) of contamination source have a higher second moment of PCE plume along the horizontal direction (Fig. 3c). Simultaneously, the ....

and so on...

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file "Response_to_Separations_Reviewer 2_R1.pdf" in which we have given a point-by-point response to Reviewer #2's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current article entitled “Effects of spill pressure on migration and remediation of 2 DNAPL in homogeneous and heterogeneous aquifers’ is interesting. After reviewing this manuscript, I suggest minor revisions needed to be done.

1.       There are some typographical mistakes throughout the manuscript

2. Add some more references related to the use of remediation of 2 DNAPL in homogeneous and heterogeneous aquifers in the introduction section.

3. Make the discussion portion more precise in the light of mentioned observations.

4. Cross-check the citations in the text with the reference portion.

It needs language improvement thoroughly.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file "Response_to_Separations_Reviewer 3_R1.pdf" in which we have given a point-by-point response to Reviewer #3's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

·       This is an interesting study, however, for further improvement, some suggestions are presented that the author needs to incorporate.

·       A conceptual model of the study and aquifer is required and will be very useful for this study

·       In the abstract, the result should also be quantitatively mentioned.  

·       In the abstract, the result part doesn’t provide any information/data about remediation, abstract needs to be improved especially the methodology and results part

·       Old references should be updated with recent ones

·       Provide some literature about the surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR) technique  in the introduction

·       On what basis the number of days are selected for the migration process as in Figure 1.

·       Remediation of the contaminant should be separately discussed and supported with respective  data

minor improvements in English language are requested

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file "Response_to_Separations_Reviewer 4_R1.pdf" in which we have given a point-by-point response to Reviewer #4's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This paper is very interesting and challenging. Moreover, this paper is well-organized and well-written. However, this work is not ready for publication yet, I suggest you to revise your work based on below comments carefully:

My Comments and Suggestions to Authors:

1-What are the drawbacks of previous ones?

2-Please also discuss the merits and limitations of your study.

3- The motivation of this paper also should be mentioned.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file "Response_to_Separations_Reviewer 5_R1.pdf" in which we have given a point-by-point response to Reviewer #5's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

I think accept

Good