Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Authors

 

Manuscript water-1399202:

“Changes in selected water quality parameters in the Utrata River as a function of catchment area land use”

 

by Katarzyna Dębska, Beata Rutkowska, Wiesław Szulc, Dariusz Gozdowski

 

This manuscript reports the results of a monitoring campaign about the water quality of the Utrata River. The study reports the concentration of phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, DO and COD measured in different areas with different land use (grasslands, urbanized areas, agricultural areas).

I find the work interesting because this type of data is precious for water quality modelling. However, the manuscript presents a lot of shortcomings that must be corrected. In general, the paper is well written but the structure should be revised and the section ‘Materials and Methods’ must be improved. In the following, I report my concerns.

1. Lines 29-31: I do not agree with the Authors, the literature about the quality of flowing water is large and expands day by day. Try to rephrase or eliminate this sentence.
2. Lines 36-39: The Authors are right but they forgot to talk about the diffusive pollution induced by combined sewage systems as a source of water quality impoverishment. I recommend reading the Introduction of the following article:

 

Peruzzi, C., Galli, A., Chiaradia, E. A., & Masseroni, D. (2021). Evaluating longitudinal dispersion of scalars in rural channels of agro-urban environments. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 1-30.

 

and the references there reported in order to understand the relevance of the water pollution induced by combined sewage systems that probably are present also in the Utrata River catchment.

3. ‘Materials and Methods’ Section: This part must be completely rewritten. At the present stage, much useful information is missing. It is mandatory to well describe the area, including a figure showing the land use of the Utrata River catchment. Furthermore, a section describing the field campaign is required. A figure showing where the measurements were taken should be reported (the current Fig 1 has very poor quality and it is impossible to distinguish any information). After that, the Authors should describe the data manipulation (if present). For instance, the Authors reports 10 samples in the grasslands but in the result section, for each month, only one point is reported for the grasslands, indicating a sort of average of the data that is not described in the text. Hence, the Authors must report exactly and clearly the data analysis that they have done to the data. A table resuming the data gathering in the campaign could be useful. To sum up, please extend this section and put all the information useful to understand the study area, the monitoring campaign program, the sampling mode, the assumption and the data analysis undertaken.
4. Line 128 – 129: Explain the difference between I and II water quality classes (not only reporting the limits but explaining why two limits exist).
5. Line 181: Since PCA is not so common, I suggest explaining in some lines the basic principle and how to read the information reported in figures 6 to 11. In this way, all the plots about PCA could be more readable by generic readers.
6. ‘Reuslts’ Section: Since you have monitored the River in different locations, the Authors could report the concentration of the pollutants also in plots showing the spatial variability. This could be really interesting.
7. Figures: There are two Figure 1 and all the figures are not recalled in the text. Please recall them in the text.
8. Lines 306-309: The Authors are too generic: reports some literature study cases supporting your observations.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper Topic is the Analysis of main river water Quality Parameters in relation to land use in a catchment (702 km2). For one year each month water samples were taken at 24 Points along the river course. Methods are described well, in Fig. 1 the location where the seewage plants are must be given. General importance to know the main Pollution Parameter in catchments is described, but the huge discussion in the EU on eutrophication and how to avoid it, must be also adressed in the Introduction. Untilnow well known Facts are described, so what are the specific Problems for the studied catchment?

In Methods is missing, how water quality parameter conc. were separated along the river Course between Grasland, urban area and agricultural area (simple subtraction?). Described statistics and PCA Analysis was used to illustrat results. Results are Illustrated with figures sufficiently, results are clear and not surprising (same as in a lot of other studies (e.g. Pt increase with rainfall. What is missing: How Downstream water Change by nutrient Inputs from upstream? - In the discussion role of agricultural land, seewage plants are pointed out. But some improvements must be done:

rows 238-247: not only urban Areas with seewage plants responsible, add role of Vegetation phenology in Grasland and agricultural area for higher NO3-conc. !!

rows 248-260: only study from China included (33) , but much more studies from EU must be mentioned for the results.

rows 266-269: discuss more in Detail potential inflow Sources along the river Course.

rows 273-286: Discussion on the importance of different Sources for high COD in summer is needed.

Author Response

rows 238-247: not only urban Areas with seewage plants responsible, add role of Vegetation phenology in Grasland and agricultural area for higher NO3-conc. !!	The reviewer is right. Corrected.
rows 248-260: only study from China included (33) , but much more studies from EU must be mentioned for the results.	Thank you for your comment. I also cite studies from Taiwan Turkey and Russia in the paper. I have added further citations
rows 266-269: discuss more in Detail potential inflow Sources along the river Course.	Corrected
rows 273-286: Discussion on the importance of different Sources for high COD in summer is needed.	The reviewer is right. Corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments are in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors incorporated all my suggestions in a more than satisfactory way. Although I believe that other analyzes on the data could have been presented (example: also the spatial and not just the temporal evolution of pollutants), the work is ready of being published, above all for the presence of useful data that can be used by the scientific community to calibrate quality models.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madame, 

First of all, the authors would like to thank You once again for valuable comments which positively influenced the quality of the paper.
The authors believe that the research results presented in the paper are sufficient, presenting more results would significantly impair the clarity of the paper and take attention away from the main focus of the paper. The authors will certainly follow this comment when writing future articles.

Best regards