Non-Invasive Characterization of Subsurface Barriers Constructed via Deep Soil Mixing for Contaminated Land Containment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has potential and it can be a good contribution to the literature. The authors assessed and compared the monitoring performance of four geophysical methods (namely, the high-density resistivity, ground penetrating radar, seismic imaging, and transient Rayleigh surface wave methods) on a soil mixing technology constructed subsurface barrier. Nevertheless, some aspects need to be changed or better explained before being considered for publication, for example:

·       The abstract could be improved, for example including more achievements;

·       The introduction can be improved, for example emphasizing the diverse aspects that are related to sustainability (see Cruz and Marques, 2014);

·       Highlight the novelty of this study in the introduction;

·       A paragraph presenting the organization of the paper should be included in the end of the introduction;

·       Literature review can be improved;

·       All the abbreviations must be presented in the text;

·       Regarding the methodology, the model must be better justified, including the limitations;

·       Explain better the Figure 1;

·       The authors could improve the discussion providing more insights about the future with this approach;

·       More recommendations for the decision makers were expected in the conclusions;

·       The references must be homogenized and in line with the author guidelines (for example, some issues are missing).

 

References:

CRUZ, N.; MARQUES, R. (2014). Scorecards for sustainable local governments. Cities. Elsevier. ISSN: 0264-2751. Vol. 39, pp. 165–170.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for making their very constructive suggestions. We have carefully considered all the review comments and revised the paper. Listed below please find our responses to the review comments. The review comments, our corresponding responses, and revised text have been tabulated for ease of reference. The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor of Sustainability,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the paper entitled ‘Non-invasive monitoring of deep soil mixing constructed sub-2 surface barriers for sustainable contaminated land containment’ In this study the authors present the use of different geophysical techniques for evaluating the ground near a subsurface barrier installed around a contaminated site. I have enjoyed reading the article and I found the topic interesting. However, there are some issues that I would like to point out.

For starters, the paper title refers to monitoring of the area, but monitoring implies repeating the same measurements over time in the same location and comparing the results afterwards, which is not the case here. What is presented instead is a characterization of the underground.

Secondly, the geometry of the barrier is not explained. This should be represented in figure 1. Where is resistivity line 4 located? Also, Figure 1A has no context. Is the contaminated site represented by a square what is depicted in figure 1A? If so, this should be indicated more clearly. Also, figure 1A needs a scale.

There are no references to previous studies of contaminated sites using seismic methods.

I’m not familiar with the term High-density resistivity method. Multi-electrode resistivity imaging or electrical tomography are more common terms to refer to this technique. What electrode array was used?

The authors don’t present any information about the quality of the processed sections. What is the Abs error in the resistivity sections? There needs to be more detailed information about the inversion methods and parameters.

It’s very hard to read the numbers indicating the location of low-resistivity areas.

The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.

Overall, I believe that this work has merit, but in needs to address the issues mentioned above.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for making their very constructive suggestions. We have carefully considered all the review comments and revised the paper. Listed below please find our responses to the review comments. The review comments, our corresponding responses, and revised text have been tabulated for ease of reference. The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider that my comments have been addressed and, therefore, I'm satisfied with the current version of the manuscript for publication.