Developing a Data-Fused Water Quality Index Based on Artificial Intelligence Models to Mitigate Conflicts between GQI and GWQI

No.

Line

Comment

1

…

It is doubtable the soundness in science to develop an integrated method to assess water quality, because a “fused “index will cover most of individual characteristics of water parameters, which can independently be indicator for water quality. This type of artificial intelligence models makes the calculation much complexed. Who could be customers?

Response:

Each physicochemical parameter of water quality has its own ability to indicate water quality. There are different water quality parameters which may not show convergence results for making decisions regarding water quality. So, graphical (e.g. Stiff and Piper diagrams) and statistical (e.g. Factor analysis and Hierarchical Analysis) methods and indices (e.g. GQI and GWQI) were developed to interpret the vast parameters and to show quality precisely. The main gap in the classical method is the limitation of using whole quality parameters which is the main reason to use the fused index and AI techniques to cover this gap.

2

33-34

Three indices … Groundwater Quality Index (GQI), the GroundWater Quality Index (GWQI), and the Data Fusion Index, …” it is hard to see how they are three indices.

Groundwater Quality is not equal to GroundWater Quality? It is easily confusing, could you find clear terms?

Response:

These two methods have the main differences and they may produce different results. (Pages 13-17).

3

36

What is “aquifer degradation”? 

Response:

We substituted this term with “Aquifer depletion” (see Line 64-65).

4

38

What is “…the spatial quality of a study region.”

Response:

We revised this sentence accordingly (please see Lines: 65).

5

53

what is “these frameworks”

Response:

We revised this sentence (please see Lines: 81).

6

226

what is “this approach”

Response:

It was corrected accordingly (see Line: 226).

7

Table 2

Table 2 is problematic and inconsistent: max EC (μS/cm) 17440, Max TDS (mg/L) 14073, however, K, Na, Ca Mg, Cl, SO4, HCO3 is much lower. Lack of NO3 data.

Response:

The ratio of TDS/EC for natural water is 0.6 to 0.8

So, the TDS and EC value is reasonable. Nitrate value was not measured.

Thank you for your attention, there was a typo in Table 1 and the maximum EC equal to 17440 is not correct and it must be 1744 and this value is not the maximum EC. Table 1 was corrected accordingly.

8

Figure 3

In Figure 3, Samples W24, W15 and W9 seem to be polluted with trace metals. Why do these samples have highest EC and TDS but very low major ions? It is doubtable of data quality.

Response:

The sampling point is shown in the Fig. 1 and it indicates that samples affected from Plms geological formation (Marl, Shale, sandstone and conglomerate) have higher EC values. But investigation of the source of contaminates is not the focus of this study. Therefore, we avoided discussing this in the manuscript.

9

…

If there are water pollution, is it OK to calculate GQI (for drinking water)?

Response:

Since water pollution was not detected in all samples, water quality analysis is necessary for managing groundwater resources. 

10

Figure 3

Figure 3, As, four digital numbers, is not acceptable,

Response:

Agreed. It was corrected accordingly.

11

Figure 4

Figure 4 Maps of water quality indices are not useful to indicate water quality, for example the figure cannot show the pollution from trace elements.

Response:

An overview of the research trend is shown in this flowchart. The first box, however, indicates four pollutants.

No.

Line

Comment

1

…

I read carefully manuscript number: water-1808302, the manuscript entitled: "Developing a data fused water quality index based on artificial intelligence models to mitigate conflicts between GQI and GWQI".

Check the English Grammar. The English language is poor.

Please check all parts of the manuscript and correct grammatical errors. The authors should ask the help of native English speaking proofreader, because there are some linguistic mistakes that should be fixed. Nevertheless, the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for their time in going through our paper carefully.

Since the quality of the study is moderate for the publication in the journal, tools for objective function optimization are unclear in the methodology and conclusion, but it still needs a major revision before reconsideration. I attached my reviewer comments in the PDF file. Authors should apply all of my comments.

Response:

We very carefully addressed all of the reviewer’s comments, which has led to an improvement in the manuscript’s quality.

2

4

The abstract section need to complete with more information. The abstract should improve this section.

Response:

Additional information has been provided as requested.

3

25, 28, 63

The relevant reference may be of interest to the author according below:

Fatahi Nafchi, R., Yaghoobi, P., Reaisi Vanani, H. et al. Eco-hydrologic stability zonation of dams and power plants using the combined models of SMCE and CEQUALW2. Appl Water Sci 11, 109 (2021). Volume 11, Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01427-z,DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01427-z.

Response:

Suggested references have been added to the text (see Line: 51)

4

95

How would authors rate the impact of the results achieved for the application area?

Response:

As a result of the results presented in this study, we can conclude that there is a serious problem with water quality in the study area, and this issue might even become worse in the future if the same practices are continued. There are a number of reasons why the problem arises, including the lack of proper environmental planning and management in the study area and poor planning practices throughout the country in general. Therefore, water resources management and environmental planning are suggested to tackle this issue in the study area.

5

190

Methodologies used in the manuscript should describe clearly. Tools for objective function optimization are unclear in the methodology.

Response:

The methodology has been clarified. Note that there was no objective function optimization in the methodology.

6

417

Result section was not written clearly. More explain about details of result.

Response:

The result chapter has been improved accordingly.

7

486

Discussion section was not written clearly.

Response:

The discussion chapter has been improved accordingly. A discussion about the impact of the research and limitations have been provided.

“As far as the authors are aware, there are no previously collected historical data on aquifer water quality for the study area, which is one of the limitations of this study. As a result, the results cannot be objectively compared with established baselines, which entails the inability to make objective comparisons based on the data. Although farming and mining activities are ongoing within the study area, both are considered to be contemporary and have only existed since the late 1990s when the baseline conditions were considered sustainable and risk-free. As a result of the results presented in this study, we can conclude that there is a serious problem with water quality in the study area, and this issue might even become worse in the future if the same practices are continued. There are a number of reasons why the problem arises, including the lack of proper environmental planning and management in the study area and poor planning practices throughout the country in general.”

8

517

The conclusion section was not written marginal. So, it should improve this section.

Response:

The conclusions chapter has been improved significantly.

No.

Line

comments

1

…

In table 2 MAX EC< MAX TDS is incorrect. Considering low concertation for major ions (e.g. max values), TDS and TH (2090 mg/L.CaCo3 ) values seem too high. HCO3- max value is only 9.11 mg/L, much lower than common water. Therefore, data quality is problematic.

Response:

The average and minimum values of EC is higher than corresponding TDS values. But, the higher value of EC is no longer directly related to salts concentration. This is because ion pairs are formed. Ion pairs weaken each other's charge, so that above this level, higher TDS will not result in equally higher electrical conductivity.  

The unit of major ions in Table is meq/L and the reason of low value for major ions is the unit of them, see Table 2.

2

33-34

Based on data of major ions (max values), groundwater quality sounds good. If groundwater is polluted with As, Fe, Pb, and Mn, it is suggestive to demonstrate why and how those trace element transport into groundwater.

Response:

The unit of major ions in Table is meq/L and the reason of low value for major ions is the unit of them, see Table 2. Therefore, the water quality is not good in all samples. However, the main controlling factors for realizing trace elements during water rock interaction is pH and Eh values and it is not directly controlled by the concentration of the major ions. So, it is possible to detect high trace elements in water with low major ions concentration specially in fractured rock aquifer.

3

….

Lines 492-496  If there is a serious problem with water quality in the study area, or even become worse in the future, it is suggestive to focus on the pollution of groundwater and potential impacts.

Response:

It is added to end of Discussion Section, see Lines 498-500.

4

…

 Indices like GQI and GWQI seems to be out of date, for example, when dealing with a level 1 framework as Fig.4, make issue of water quality more complexed and confusing.

Response:

The GQI and GWQI indices are often use for indicating the water quality, but we agree with you, they are not a perfect method and it suffer from uncertainty due to use expert opinion in different steps. So, It is the main gap in previous studies which will cover by this research.

No.

Line

comments

1

…

I read the revised manuscript. In my point of view, result of this kind of research could be interesting and useful for many applications specifically. All previous comments were applied. The authors applied all comments point by point and I confirm their revision. The added information is important and useful and led to improve the manuscript. I accept the revised manuscript in this present form. I concur; the final decision is accept for publication.

Response:

Thank you for your support.