Uncertainty in Determination of the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve Based on the van Genuchten Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Uncertainty in determination of soil-water characteristic curve based on van Genuchten model
The present study discussed very important subject. The paper is well written and in the scope of the journal, however, some minor comments should be addressed before accept to publication.
Comments
Abstract:
1. Authors should add some detail for samples description and preparation (sand and kaolin) … it will be more evidence.
Introduction
2. Authors should indicate and add the novelty of your work
Methodology
1. Authors should add some explanation why they choose the kaolin as clay mineral?
2. Add more characteristics for this clay mineral because the phyllosilicate has a big sensibility under pressure.
3. For the applicability of your proposal method, If we change the kaolin with other type of clay (illite, kaolinite...) with the same percentage and conditions we have the same results?
Discussion
1. Authors should develop the discussion section by adding comparison with the published works and highlights your finding (novelty of the work)
2. Authors add the merits and demerits of your work
Conclusion
Authors should rework the conclusion section and add the principal findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors used the van Genuchten model to determine the soil-water characteristic curve.
General review:
1. Overall, the publication provides a highly intriguing subject, and the specific research appears to have some important findings for the field's research community.
2. The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. This paper is written with a very good scientific style. I don’t find any grammatically errors except some minor errors that the authors need to correct it.
However, I have some minor comments for revision to improve the manuscript.
1. I suggest to separate the all equations cited in the introduction and moved it in the materials and method part.
2. Line 97: please checking this: thehe……
3. Line 102: space after 2.
4. Line 102 to 103: please add what represent the (a) and (b) in the caption of the figure.
5. Table 1. Please trying to separate the first title from the second by line like this: Measured degree of saturation, S/ s1,s2…..
6. Line 121: space
7. Figure 4: please try to put the legend away from the curve
8. The discussion is missing. I suggest to improve this part.
My decision, I accept this communication after revision the above minor comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript should be modified, based on the following comments:
1. The manuscript is quite short, hence best suited as a technical note, unless it is enhanced with more study aspects.
2. The title should be simplified so that it is easily understandable.
3. The abstract should be modified based on the main subject matter and the basic research findings.
4. The literature review is incomplete, since several relevant and recent contributions are missing, for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.10.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4206
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278307
5. The research gap of existing knowledge and motivation behind the study are not discussed properly. The objective and research methodology must be described in-depth.
6. The PSD shown in Figure 1 is erroneous. The X axis values should be ascending.
7. Figure 2 is not labeled. Figure 3 is difficult to understand. Figure 4 is erroneous.
8. Table 2: Some values indicated (for example “4.74E-05”) is misleading. The format should be corrected as per standard norms.
9. What is the importance, significance and practical importance of the study? What are the novelty and limitations?
10. The conclusions should focus on the primary research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Referee Report
On the paper “ Uncertainty in determination of soil-water characteristic curve based on van Genuchten model “ (sustainability-2281292) by the authors Shijun Wang, Jing Yang, Xing Wang, Zhong Zhang and Qian Zhai submitted to the Sustainability
This is interesting paper. It reports the Taylor’s expansion adopted and only the first-order term considered for the van Genuchten model. The variances of the fitting parameters in the van Genuchten model are estimated from the residual error. The uncertainty of soil-water characteristic curve using van Genuchten model is quantified by using the upper and lower bound with 95% confidence level. The advantage of this work is a high level of theoretical understanding. The disadvantage of this work is a poor practical orientation. The obtained results are reliable without any doubts. However, I have some additions. I would like to note a few points to improve the paper before it can be published:
1. Authors should provide concrete examples of solving nonlinear unconstrained optimization problems:
(1). V.A. Turchenko, S.V. Trukhanov, V.G. Kostishin, F. Damay, F. Porcher, D.S. Klygach, M.G. Vakhitov, D. Lyakhov, D. Michels, B. Bozzo, I. Fina, M.A. Almessiere, Y. Slimani, A. Baykal, D. Zhou, A.V. Trukhanov, Features of structure, magnetic state and electrodynamic performance of SrFe12-xInxO19, Sci. Rep. 11 (2021) 18342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97684-8.
(2). M.A. Almessiere, Y. Slimani, N.A. Algarou, M.G. Vakhitov, D.S. Klygach, A. Baykal, T.I. Zubar, S.V. Trukhanov , A.V. Trukhanov, H. Attia, M. Sertkol, I.A. Auwal, Tuning the structure, magnetic and high frequency properties of Sc-doped Sr0.5Ba0.5ScxFe12-xO19/NiFe2O4 hard/soft nanocomposites, Adv. Electr. Mater. (2022) 01124. https://doi.org/10.1002/aelm.202101124.
2. The proposed 2 papers should be inserted in References.
The paper should be sent to me for the second analysis after the moderate revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Individual components of the equipment in Figure 2 must be labeled.
2, Figure 3 is very difficult to read. Must be improved substantially.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Referee Report
On the paper “ Uncertainty in determination of soil-water characteristic curve based on van Genuchten model “ (sustainability-2281292-v2) by the authors Shijun Wang, Jing Yang, Xing Wang, Zhong Zhang and Qian Zhai submitted to the Sustainability
This paper has been well corrected and it can be recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
It's fine.
