Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well given covering in relative detail the subject of the study. Few comments to improve the readability and the quality of the information provided:
L115 In the materials and methods section the first paragraph needs to be more detailed including the methodology and all the data-information used for the purpose of the study. An option is to transfer the basic information provided in L 92-114.Also it might be better to include a table or a figure for precipitation and temperature of the main areas in the materials and methods section.
L125 - L245. This text could be under the Results and Discussion section rather than Materials and Methods. Discussion should be more analytic, It could include some parts that now are presented in the conclusion section.
L256-L277 Conclusions section should be shortened (see above) including probably only the highlights or bullets.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
| |
Title: Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus.
|
Comments |
L115 In the materials and methods section the first paragraph needs to be more detailed including the methodology and all the data-information used for the purpose of the study. An option is to transfer the basic information provided in L 92-114.Also it might be better to include a table or a figure for precipitation and temperature of the main areas in the materials and methods section.
| We appreciate respected reviewer’s thoughtful assessment.
Changed as advised and two figures explaining the weather conditions wereincluded |
L125 - L245. This text could be under the Results and Discussion section rather than Materials and Methods. Discussion should be more analytic, It could include some parts that now are presented in the conclusion section.
| Changed as advised |
L256-L277 Conclusions section should be shortened (see above) including probably only the highlights or bullets.
| The section was shortened |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper addresses the effluent water reuse possibilities as a component of Integrated Water Resources Management in Northern Cyprus. Although the method and analysis are simple, this work has its practical value. My only concern is that the data presented in this works seem outdated. The authors should provide the most updated information, if there is any.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
| |
Title: Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus.
|
Comments |
This paper addresses the effluent water reuse possibilities as a component of Integrated Water Resources Management in Northern Cyprus. Although the method and analysis are simple, this work has its practical value. My only concern is that the data presented in this works seem outdated. The authors should provide the most updated information, if there is any.
| We appreciate respected reviewer’s thoughtful assessment. Unfortunately no upto date data is is available
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper covers an interests thematic area. My main concern is your result and discussion section. This is very limited and not at all enough to elaborate on your research work. You must work again to elaborate the paper widely. Some data in the introduction sections are your materials. They should go Materials and method section. There is no such a section. In the revisions, I highly recommend to read "Developing a Global Compendium on Water Quality Guidelines (2018) very updated. You have to also insert the water quality governance to the paper to see the Cyprus policy changes at a certain level.
Withanachchi, S.S.; Ghambashidze, G.; Kunchulia, I.; Urushadze, T.; Ploeger, A. A Paradigm Shift in Water Quality Governance in a Transitional Context: A Critical Study about the Empowerment of Local Governance in Georgia. Water 2018, 10, 98.
Author Response
REVIEWER 3
| |
Title: Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus.
|
Comments |
This paper covers an interests thematic area. My main concern is your result and discussion section. This is very limited and not at all enough to elaborate on your research work. You must work again to elaborate the paper widely. Some data in the introduction sections are your materials. They should go Materials and method section. There is no such a section. In the revisions, I highly recommend to read "Developing a Global Compendium on Water Quality Guidelines (2018) very updated. You have to also insert the water quality governance to the paper to see the Cyprus policy changes at a certain level.
| We appreciate respected reviewer’s thoughtful assessment. Changed was arranged as advised considering the other changes advised by the other reviewers. Revised section includes the cited reference. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
See attached file.Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEW 4
| |
Title: Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus.
|
Author Comments
|
Line 21‐Northern Cyprus (NC) repeated: once authors have used NC then go on writing just NC.
| Corrected |
Line 23‐“Here is no regulatory framework available in the country for effluent water reuse.” Maybe authors intend “There is no regulatory framework…”.
| Corrected |
Line 38‐“Northern Cyprus (NC) covers had AN area of 3355 km2...”.
| Corrected |
Line 39‐are authors sure about the reference 1 related to this sentence?
| Ref 1 removed |
Line 40-“population of approximately 260,000 INHABITANTS and having a population of 300,000 livestock”.
| Change was done |
Lines 40/41‐The estimated university student population is about 30,000 [1]. I do not see the utility of this sentence… delete!
| Deleted |
Line 44‐ over abstraction should be one word Lines 48/52‐ very confused sentences. Rephrase!
| Corrected |
Line 54‐“from the southERN part of Cyprus and IS treated up to secondary level.”
| Corrected |
Lines 54/55‐ “The level of treatment varies from 60 to 90 % depending on the weather conditions.” Explain why!
| Explained |
Lines 60/63‐ maybe some commas could make the sentence more readable while there is a “;” too much
| Change was arranged and reference is given |
Lines 68/69‐any reference for those Directives? | Reference was added |
Lines 76/78‐confused, rephrase! | Revised |
Line 87‐ “semi perennial low springs discharge” should be “semi perennial low discharge springs”. | Changed |
Figure 1‐ insert all the aquifer are referred to in text. Insert states names in the geographical small map as Turkey. Insert all cities are referred to in text or create a new image with these information. | The cities are inserted into the map and aquifers are shown in the new figure added |
Lines 92/93‐the aquifers should be shown in the map in figure 1.
| Aquifers are shown in the new figure |
Lines 112/114‐“This catastrophe causes decrease in the recharging process of the underground resources and as a result, aggravation in the water deficiencies of the aquifers as it is experienced in the whole European countries [20, 21] AND IN GENERAL IN THE WORLD [authors should cite some work as Chen, Z.; Grasby, S.E.; Osadetz, K.G. Relation between climate variability and groundwater levels in theupper carbonate aquifer, southern Manitoba, Canada. J. Hydrol. 2004, 290, 43–62 AND Water 2017, 9, 788; doi:10.3390/w9100788].
| The change was done and the reference advised was added |
Lines 119/124‐ all the three points mentioned in these lines are very simply resumed in the following sections of the paper. Keeping reading it is very difficult to understand what authors’ contribution is because just a water balance is presented, moreover in a confused way.
| Revision was done. |
Line 132‐ “Especially, when drought conditions are considered these values reach…” these values are referred to “deficiencies”? Make it clearer!
| Changed |
IT IS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SAFE YIELD HAS BEEN AVALUATED | Explained. It is given by the department of Geology and Mines |
Table 2‐ the cited aquifer were just 3… now they are 11! Explain! Aquifers must be shown in map! Table 3‐ difficult to read! Horizontal lines should help. “Agriculture” has to stay in caption line?
| Explained and horizontal lined drawn. The three aquifers are the main one and important to the government. The others are in less importance. Some changes were arranged in the sentence |
Table 4‐ same comments as Table 3. Moreover 4% + 24% for Domestic use do not make 100%!
| The mistake was corrected. Household use was added |
Figure 2‐ explain how those curves have been evaluated. Why to discriminate between average and drough conditions? Do not authors know if 2002 (for example) was dry or wet? This part is not clearly explained. Some information more need to be provided!
| Explaination was added. |
Line 154‐ “Tertiary treatment of waste water reuse offers a cost much lower than the cost…”
| corrected |
Line 156‐ reference [14] does not refer to the Directive.
| Reference was corrected |
Line 158‐ “wastewater from the certain industrial sectors.” Which sectors?
| Explainion was added |
Lines 160/163‐ should be inserted at least before Table 3. Why in Table 3 and 4 the Tourism sector is not included?
| Replaced. Since the country has very small industry the results are given in the household as a total and it represents 12 % of the domestic use . This is how the water works department is evaluating in the country |
Lines 167/168‐ Rephrase!
| Revised |
Line 179/180‐ “... the volume treated dropS TO 50%...” + “freshwater is reduced” explain why! + LCTP has not been defined before so insert extended words!
| Explained and LCTP was inserted earlier in the manuscript |
Lines 187/193‐ confused! Rephrase! Table 5‐ cities in the map!
| Revised and cities are shown in the figure |
Lines 214/218‐ long and confused sentence. Rephrase!
| Revised |
Line 218‐ reference [30] must stay before reference [31]
| Changed |
Table 6‐ list acronyms in extended way in caption
| Arranged |
Table 7‐horizontal lines can help the reading | Revised |
Table 8‐ horizontal lines can help the reading. | Revised |
Lines 214/218‐ long and confused sentence. Rephrase!
| Rephrased |
RESULT AND DISCUSSION SECTION IS VERY POOR | Improved |
CONCLUSIONS ARE VERY GENERAL | Revised |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version met the all proposed revisions. I would like to accept the paper.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments are attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer #4
Line confusion is because of the track changes applied requested by the editor.
Title: Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus.
|
Authors‘ responses |
Suggested citation Water 2017, 9, 788; doi:10.3390/w9100788 is missing | References were added Line 123, Ref [19] Line 533 |
Figure 2 modification is needed | Figure 2 was revised to its new format as requested |
Figure 4 improve resolution | Resolution of Fig 4 was improved |
Line 357 are authors sure about the reference to Fig 2 shows average T not safe yield | The mistake was corrected Line 335 |
Table 3 and 4: I suggest to insert lines as the green ones indicated below
| Lines inserted as advised |
Is still missing in text an explanation regarding the absence of the tourism sector in table 3 and 4
| Line about tourism sector was added on Line 331 |
Table 8: horizontal lines still missing. It is very difficult to read the table
| Horizontal lines and additional corrections were added to put the table in a better format as requested. |