A Localized Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status Using GIS-Based Water Quality Index in Industrial Zone of Faisalabad, Pakistan
, Shahbaz Nasir Khan 1,*, Muhammad Umar Akbar 1,3, Arfan Arshad 3,*, Md. Masudur Rahman 4 and Shumaila Mustafa 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A Localized Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status Using Geospatial Water Quality Index in Industrial Zone of Faisalabad, Pakistan
Overall, this paper is writing up in a professional scientific way. The authors have a sound knowledge of theoretical science. A study is presented on A Localized Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status Using Geospatial Water Quality Index in Industrial Zone of Faisalabad, Pakistan. The description of the results is properly arranged in MS. The methodology was adequately addressed. The results seem to be authentic. Field results are demonstrative. The paper is well organized, and the figures are necessary. No ethical problems.
Suggestion about MS
Abstract: Untreated industrial waste is a major contributor to pollution of soil and groundwater because it generates toxic substances that are harmful to both the environment and human health.
Did you do any work-related Human Health?
The research's resulting maps will help policymakers to manage the groundwater supplies more efficiently.
What is your finding helpful for policymakers?
Key word
ArcGIS; I dnot think it is a keyword.
1. Introduction
In this section, you mostly discussed the Pakistan area-related problems. It is suggested to discuss in a few lines South Asia because in this region also occur the same issue increases the readability of the paper. It is requested add your objective, significance and novelty of the study.
Fig.1:Geographcal location of Faislablabad district in Pakistan and experimnetal location of Khurarianwalaindustrial zoneand sampling sites.
It is suggested use Pakistan Political map.
2.2 Analysis of Samples122
Electrical conductivity (EC), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids 123 (TSS), turbidity, Carbonate, Ca2+, Fe, HCO 3, Cl, Mg2+, SO24, As, Cr, Cu, and Mn were 124 among the sixteen physiochemical parameters which were examined using standard 125 methods described by [22].
It is suggested to write in a proper scientific way e.g Ca+2
It is suggested to provide proper references for all equations.
2.3 GIS Analysis
This section is full of boulders. It is suggested read some latest papers and build again this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors:
In this study, the authors performed the localized assessment of groundwater quality using the water quality index in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Overall, the manuscript is properly structured with promising results and discussions. However, there are comments to be addressed:
Specific:
1. Title is slightly confusing. the term “geospatial WQI” sounds like a new method of WQI computation, however, in this study, the authors are just applying GIS and WQI for groundwater quality evaluation. So please consider revising the title.
2. Introduction: Huge modifications are necessary for the introduction section. The research gaps and significance of the study are not shown. Moreover, the authors should provide more precise research objectives in this study.
3. Locations of the study region and sampling locations combined and restructured. And why discussion of sampling handling is provided in the sampling locations? Create a sub-topic or combined the sampling handling/collection with section 2.2. It is confusing for authors.
4. Why kriging method was used as the interpolation method?
5. Provide a box plot to replace Table 1 as it can provide a more interesting and interactive figure as compared to a figure. Also, more statistical discussion can be provided for instance the clustered analysis for the site, etc. Else, the GIS maps plotted can provide all information in the Table 1.
6. Line 247: 25 degrees Celsius → 25°C （Apply throughout the manuscript）
7. Line 115-117: please check the grammar and writing format. This kind of mistake should have been avoided prior to submission.
8. Table 2: So what is the difference between Class Excellent and Good as both have the usage?
9. How the authors assigned the weight for the corresponding parameter?
10. Table 3 serves the minimum function in the study as Fig 6 provides the same results.
11. Discussion is lacking in this study. So what are the proposed mitigations? What should the government do for proper water quality management? Effects from changing land use or anthropogenic activities? The difference between upstream or downstream is not provided.
12. Some relevant literature is missing in this study.
a. Wong, Y. J., Shimizu, Y., He, K., & Nik Sulaiman, N. M. (2020). Comparison among different ASEAN water quality indices for the assessment of the spatial variation of surface water quality in the Selangor river basin, Malaysia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192(10), 644, doi:10.1007/s10661-020-08543-4.
13. Conclusion section seems to be a repetition of the results section. Huge modifications are required. Please provide insights into this study and what can be further done in the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree with revised version
Author Response
We thank you reviewer for you valuable suggestions and for accepting our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have substantially addressed the comments with more insightful discussions in the revised manuscript.
Prior to accepting the manuscript, I am curious about the addition of the two new authors. I personally think this is not a good/professional practice if no reason was provided. The revision of the manuscript required no technical knowledge or new plots. Therefore, please remove the new authors as proofreading the manuscript should only be mentioned in the acknowledgement. Please read
Those who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments. More detailed guidance on authorship is given by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Failure to do so, the journal editors remain the right to retract your paper.
Author Response
We thank you reviewer for helping us improve the manuscript's quality with valuable suggestions/recommendations. Indeed it's a great experience.
Regarding the two authors, we included while submitting the revision is indeed not a good practice at this stage. However, these two authors were added after signing the authors-change-agreement form which Editor accepted at that stage. After signing this agreement, we took help from the last two authors in proofreading and editing. Dr. Rahman helped us to thoroughly check the grammar mistakes and improve the manuscript's quality. Ms. Shumaila helped to add more discussion sections "mitigations" as per the reviewer's comment in the last revision. We do understand their contributions are not enough but we still request to please allow these two authors to remain in the manuscript. It's really not good for the corresponding author to remove any author at this stage while the agreement form was signed before the revision. We surely learn a lesson and will follow the reviewer's valuable suggestion in any next submission of new articles and will never repeat this practice. We totally agree with the reviewer's suggestion.
Thank you
