Estimation of Fractal Dimension of Suspended Sediments from Two Mexican Rivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General overview of study:

Although the article omits any mention of its innovative aspects, the general overview is satisfactory. What are the gaps filled/? How does it contribute to science and/or what are its potential applications? The article lacks any indications about its scientific methods for another researcher. It's unclear! There is no description of which parameters were determined simultaneously in the subsection on surface water analysis.

Specific comments:

1. The methodology does not describe whether surface water was tested in the same range and frequency per year.

2. Please inform me why the tests water were not carried out during the whole year of the research. The obtained results may not be reliable, because the water quality changes dynamically, and the results from the different periods could significantly affect the final conclusions of the analysis. What were the criteria for their selection in the analyzed catchments?

3. What are the methodological limitations of the presented analyzes? What are the measurement errors and the operating range of the devices and methods used to collect the results? What is the range of detection and determination of individual parameters?

4. Descriptions in the "Results" section are not very detailed, too short, and the very interpretation of the results is not very detailed.

5. Despite the fact that these results are described in detail, there are no graphs explaining their temporal variability. In spite of the description, there are no graphs showing the temporal variability of the results. Modeling results for estuaries are not interpreted in detail. How were these parameters determined to influence water quality variability? How do you determine the level of influence that is strong? What is the relevant cutoff value?

6. Lack of discussion of the results with similar studies of hydrodynamic parameters and turbulence properties in catchments. In the text, there is a lack of a specific description of surface runoff models supported by scientific literature. The statements on lines 346-347 are general and no relevant sources are given to support them.

7. Literature is poor.

8. Scales in Figures 1 b and c need to be added.

Constructive feedback:

Their general observations are not backed up by much scientific evidence, according to the authors. In the text, figure 5 is not described in detail or referred to. Data significance should be displayed in a table or text. The statistical significance of parameters is not specified. Would you mind explaining why other parameters were not included? It is possible to divide suspended sediment into several fractions. Different grain sizes may have been calculated based on a different fraction of particle size.

Summary of the paper:

The Mexican Rivers, which hold economic and environmental significance, were studied and evaluated in this research. Paper show modeling results. I found the article to be very interesting and well written. Correcting it, however, is necessary. There is chaos in the article summary.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

L153: reconstructed images

L155: two algorithms

Figure 3: Seetling column should be settling column.

L180-182: Why were two symbols (Lc and L) used for the box length?

L174-209: The explanations about box counting methods are not clear.

L237: It is better to put the explanations about D and d right after Equation (5).

L247: Figure 5.

L251: Why use two plots in Figure 5?

L272 and L282: It is better to add the locations.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Consideration was made of the commentary. Answering the questions was reasonably well done by the authors. As far as I am concerned, this text can be accepted.

Author Response

We have changed figures 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in order to make them more visible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx