The Study of Groundwater in the Zhambyl Region, Southern Kazakhstan, to Improve Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation: Major Revision

 

Comments to the Author

The topic of the manuscript is appropriately suited for publication. The manuscript is in general well written and organized. It provides a large amount of experimental data, and the work seems to be carefully executed. The authors used appropriate methods to address the aims and objectives of the study. The results obtained are also interesting and relevant. Overall, the study is technically solid and includes appropriate methods as well as pertinent results. However, and for the sake of full impact only, the authors are invited to consider the following list of suggestions and recommendations.

The reviewer has some specific comments/suggestions provided below.

Section 1:

·         Although the introduction mentions that the purpose of the research is to "sample and evaluate the state of self-sustaining hydrogeological wells by analyzing the composition of groundwater for human consumption," it does not clearly specify the specific objectives of the study or the research questions to be addressed. This makes it difficult to understand the significance of the study and its potential contributions to the scientific literature.

·         Furthermore, while the introduction mentions comparing water samples with previous data, it does not provide context on the expected or significant changes in water quality over time. Without this contextualization, it is difficult to fully assess the impact of the results.

Section 2:

·         Although the article mentions conducting chemical analyses on water samples, the exact methodology used for these analyses is not clearly described. It is important for analytical methods to be rigorous and well-documented to ensure the validity of the results.

·         The article mentions analyzing only 40 water samples out of a total of 97 wells studied. This raises questions about the representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the conclusions drawn from these limited samples.

·         While the article mentions comparing the analysis results to international and local standards, it does not provide details on these specific standards. Without clear and specific standards for the measured parameters, it is difficult to assess water quality and draw meaningful conclusions about its impact on public health or the environment.

·         It is crucial in any scientific study to have quality control measures for data to ensure accuracy and reliability of results. The article does not explicitly mention measures taken to ensure data quality generated by chemical analyses.

·         Authors should discuss the limitations of their study to contextualize the results and avoid overinterpretation. The article does not seem to comprehensively address the study's limitations, which could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the results.

Section 3:

·         The article highlights that certain chemical components in groundwater exceed drinking water quality standards. For instance, levels of sodium, chloride, sulfate, lithium, and strontium surpass permissible limits for human consumption. This raises concerns about the safety of drinking water in the region.

·         Exceeding drinking water quality standards for certain components, such as sodium, chloride, sulfate, lithium, and strontium, is associated with health risks including cardiovascular issues, digestive disorders, kidney damage, and serious illnesses such as cancer.

·         Although the article identifies breaches of drinking water quality standards, it does not propose concrete solutions to address these issues. It is essential to recommend mitigation measures or water management strategies to ensure the safety and quality of drinking water in the region.

·         In addition to impacts on human health, elevated levels of certain contaminants in groundwater can also have adverse effects on the surrounding ecosystem. These environmental risks need to be considered in the overall assessment of water quality.

·         The article mentions the need for further research to identify potential locations of natural hydrogen production "factories." However, it does not specify how these studies could be conducted or how they could contribute to addressing drinking water quality issues in the region.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please review our responses to your comments.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments/suggestions to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article does not match the content. The article does not actually address the issue of sustainability improvement, but only reports on the fragmentary groundwater studies carried out. 

2. Abstract and Introduction. The abstract talks about the potential problem of hydrogen production in the region, but does not present any substantive research or insights or mathematical modelling by the authors on the subject, so it is not clear why the problem is emphasised.

3. The article mentions that extensive groundwater studies have been carried out, but in fact only a few chemical and physical paremeters measurements are presented. Biochemical and biological groundwater parameters are not assessed at all, which is important.

4. Diagrams 4 and 5 are incomprehensible, there are no axis headings and no legends.

5. Table 2 gives a description of the 15 wells with photographs. This does not contribute anything positive to the article as a whole - it is just "information noise", of which there is a great deal, and such extraneous information, which is not directly relevant to the problem at hand, should be removed unequivocally.

6. Figure 9 is reproduced from https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel. Figures from other authors should not be copied in a scientific article. This looks like plagiarism.

7. There is a lack of spatial and temporal analysis of the research data. The paper lacks statistically processed data correlations between the results of individual sampling sites. No statistical assessment of the impact of climatic factors on groundwater quality.

8. The paper presents its claims as axioms and does not provide data analysis to support them.

9. The conclusions of the article have no scientific summary, but are merely a patchwork of the results of the studies carried out, without a clear logical meaning.

10. The reference list contains as many as 6 articles belonging to Dinara Adenova, Janay Sagin and Malis Absametov, which is akin to self-citation and should be strictly avoided.

To sum up: the article is of little value, it seems that the aim was to cover the shallowness of scholarship under a large sample of text, a mass of superfluous and unnecessary illustrations, and a mass of data that was not analysed in depth. I believe that the manuscript must be thoroughly revised, unnecessary information must be discarded, and the research data must be properly analysed and statistically processed, at least using multivariate analysis. Then it would make sense to re-review the manuscript. The manuscript is unpublishable in its current content.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please review our responses to your comments.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments/suggestions to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Write in the first person singular (line 20)

2. Indicate the meaning of MPC (lines 40-42 and 575-577)

3. Check font size (lines 56-57)

4. Check footer of figure (lines 117-118 )

5. Review subscripts, superscripts, units (mg/L), and writing chemical formulas (lines 237, 242, 316, 320, 321, 335-340, 346-348, 380-383, 421, 475)

6. In Table 2, review units of wellhead height (meter=m)

7. The lines 347 and 348 are repeated

8. Check Table 3, use of comma or decimal point, loading of formulas

9. Indicate the meaning of the colors in Table 5

10. The table 4 does not mention the type and percentages of the different types of water as mentioned in lines 384-385

 

11. Expand the discussion of Figures 4 and 5

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please review our responses to your comments.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments/suggestions to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated a large number of ground water samples from 97 wells across different locations in South Kazakhstan. The groundwater composition analysis revealed high mineral composition in water of some wells. In my evaluation, this article is pertinent to the reader of Sustainability since the analysis of groundwater composition and its relationship between natural geological environment and anthropogenic activities from mining industry will provide a basis for further investigations in water sustainability improvement, water use for consumption or keeping working the underground geological “factories”, producing the natural “white” hydrogen. The sample source and measurement details are carefully documented in this manuscript. I recommend this article being published after minor revisions. I suggest the author consider the following points to improve the soundness of this manuscript.

1.       I recommend that the authors provide a brief discussion on the rationale behind focusing on the South Kazakhstan regions for sample collection. Additionally, it would be valuable to assess the representativeness of this region and consider its broader impact.

2.       I suggest more explanations to be added for Figure 4. Figure 4 is missing axis titles. It’s unclear why there are 39 columns.

3.       Caption for Figure 6 is missing.

4.       The purpose of presenting Table 5 seems unclear to me. The discussions on table 5 seem missing.

5.       Discussions seem missing on why regions mapped on Figure 6 have high levels of mineralization. The same problem applies to regions shown in Figure 7. I suggest the author discuss more on the causes and correlations to natural geological environment and anthropogenic activities.

 

In summary, I am supportive on the publication of this manuscript after minor revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some  sentences are hard to follow due to grammar error. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please review our responses to your comments.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments/suggestions to improve our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback with valuable comments!

Our native English-speaking colleagues have reviewed our article also.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that most of my comments have been taken into account after the authors' significant revision of the manuscript. The content and quality of the manuscript has improved considerably, and I judge it to be publishable in principle.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback with valuable comments!

Our native English-speaking colleagues have reviewed our article also.