Peer-Review Record
Evaluation of LNAPL Behavior in Water Table Inter-Fluctuate Zone under Groundwater Drawdown Condition
Water 2020, 12(9), 2337; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092337
Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(9), 2337; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092337
Submission received: 20 July 2020
/
Revised: 11 August 2020
/
Accepted: 15 August 2020
/
Published: 20 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Subsurface Multiphase Flow and Contamination Remediation)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
- The manuscript contains minor grammatical errors that should be corrected.
- The authors failed to provide quantitative analysis of their data to highlight the impact of examined parameters, and to enable a meaningful comparison of the obtained results under various operating conditions.
Specific comments:
- Why did the authors perform three experiments and not four experiments, to also consider the behavior of crude oil in fine grain material?
- The abbreviations used in Figure 2 should be described in the figure caption, or in the text of manuscript.
- Section 3.1, Line 181: How is the “end of experiment” defined? Is it the same as end of test (ET)? The authors should provide descriptions of the definitions used.
- Lines 227-228: It is stated that “At the end of the experiment, the LNAPL thickness in all monitoring wells is greater than that at the onset of pumping.” This phenomenon is observed in Figure 6. The authors should explain the reason behind this observation.
- Line 256: The authors state that Zo is greater in M3 and M6 than in M1. Then on line 258 and 259 it is stated that the larger Zo in M1 is likely due to the fact that it is closer to the injection point than M3. Do the authors refer to the end of test where Zo is larger in M1 than in M3? This should be clearly mentioned in the text.
- Why is Zo greater in M3 and M6 than in M1 before pumping (BP), but larger in M1 than in M3 at the end of test (ET)?
- On line 267-268 the authors mention the rate of Zo decrease without providing any quantitative data.
- The quality of this manuscript will improve if the authors conduct kinetics analysis of the data related to the LNAPL thickness and interface variations. The analysis of kinetics will provide quantitative data on the rates of variations in the thickness of LNAPL and interface elevations under the examined experimental conditions. This will provide a more meaningful analysis of the results and a better means for comparison of the obtained results.
- The authors should provide experimental data or theoretical support for the statement made on lines 269 and 270.
- How many times was each experiment repeated? The authors should show the statistical significance of the reported results.
- Lines 296-297: What is the reason that no LNAPL was observed in M2 at any time during the experiment? Why was LNAPL observed in all other wells and not in M2? In particular, M4 and M5 are at larger distances to PW compared to M2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have not fully incorporated my comments and recommendations in the revised manuscript. However, the manuscript has been improved after the revision and the content should be useful to the readers of Water. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript.
