Risk Analysis of Heavy Metals and Groundwater Quality Indices in Residential Areas: A Case Study in the Rajanpur District, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript, water-1973669-peer-review-v1- entitled "Risk Analysis of Heavy Metals and Groundwater Quality Indices in Residential Areas: A case study in District Rajanpur, Pakistan," is well written and has potential, but it should be more organized. This research investigates the groundwater quality in urban and agricultural areas of the District of Rajanpur, Pakistan.

In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences. The study seems to be well-designed. The methodology and results are technically sound. Discussions on the scientific and practical values of the study, the limitations of proposed models, and future work are meaningful. I recommend accepting this manuscript after revision. The main concerns are as follows:

1)     Hydrogeology analysis without providing a geology map is worthless. Also, the authors can provide a hydrogeology map with the groundwater level and flow line.

2)     More recent references might support the first and second paragraphs of the introduction. Some references and literature are pretty old. There is no research reference for 2022. The authors should read and use the newly published papers in their research.

·       Sadeghfam, S., Bagheri, A., Razzagh, S., Nadiri, A. A., Vadiati, M., Senapathi, V., & Sekar, S. (2022). Hydrochemical analysis of seawater intrusion by graphical techniques in coastal aquifers to delineate vulnerable areas. In Groundwater Contamination in Coastal Aquifers (pp. 91-104). Elsevier.

·       Vadiati, M., Rajabi Yami, Z., Eskandari, E., Nakhaei, M., & Kisi, O. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence models for prediction of groundwater level fluctuations: Case study (Tehran-Karaj alluvial aquifer). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(9), 1-21.

3)     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight significant difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them more straightforwardly in the abstract and introduction.

4)     Providing a well-detailed comprehensive flowchart is highly recommended by researchers, so please edit the flowchart representing the methodology in the paper with emphasis on the whole study procedure

5)     Rajanpur, Pakistan, is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.

6)     Fig. 4 should be improved by adding more detail, and the map's quality is not satisfactory.

7)     I suggest explaining more about Fig. 4 since it is the core of the current research, and the map is unclear. Also, some parts of the map are not consistent with the hydrochemistry of the study area.

8)     Fig. 6 is the most important table in the manuscript, and, unfortunately, the authors did not try to discuss it in a specific way. A comprehensive discussion emphasizing this would significantly improve the paper on the table.

9)     It seems that conclusions are observations only, and the manuscript needs thorough checking for explanations given for results. The authors should interpret the results argument.

 

 

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 assessment of groundwater quality and its risk analysis of heavy metals in District Rajanpur, Pakistan. Overall, the manuscript is properly structured with promising results and discussions. However, there are comments to be addressed:

Specific:

1. 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. The research gap (line 80) mentioned was not identified in the study.

3. Figure 1 needs to be reconfigured. The current map looks stretched and not properly illustrated. Please revise a higher-quality figure.

4. Line 103. The subheading should be just "Statistical Analysis or Geostatistical Analysis" instead of Pre-field methods.

5. Major English correction is necessary. The manuscript content is interesting, but the English must be revised prior to the resubmission. Please find a native speaker/proofreading company to crosscheck the English. Some of the examples are as follows: Line 111 world health organization should be World Health Organization. Line 147  Geographic Information System should geographic information system. Line 149 Arc GIS Map should be ArcGIS Map 10.5.

6.  Figure 2. Can be illustrated in a more professional way. Please revise

7.  Figure 3 and Figure 4. Very poor quality and it cannot be read clearly. Please provide a higher-resolution figure. Also, instead of using bar charts, I would suggest using the interpolation method to better illustrate the spatial difference. 

8. Line 199 Minor and trace elements. Nothing is known as minor element. "Trace elements" is sufficient. 

9.  Why physicochemical parameters were not shown using maps?

10.  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. Some relevant references are provided for enhancing the discussion section:

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

(b) Sakaa, B., Elbeltagi, A., Boudibi, S., Chaffaï, H., Islam, A. R. M. T., Kulimushi, L. C., et al. (2022). Water quality index modeling using random forest and improved SMO algorithm for support vector machine in Saf-Saf river basin. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, doi:10.1007/s11356-022-18644-x.

(c) Wong, Y. J., Shimizu, Y., Kamiya, A., Maneechot, L., Bharambe, K. P., Fong, C. S., et al. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence methods for monsoonal river classification in Selangor river basin, Malaysia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(7), 438, doi:10.1007/s10661-021-09202-y.

 

11.  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.

(12) Implications for future research may also be included in the conclusion at the end.

 

Overall, this research has created a lively discussion on so many issues that were hitherto unheard of and not addressed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the authors:

The authors have substantially addressed my comments, however, there are still some points that need to be addressed:

(i) Interpolation method in incorporated into the GIS tool. therefore it is possible. However the current graph is much clearer and more readable than the previous version, therefore I can accept the current presentation. 

(ii) The purpose of GIS mapping is to ease the readers to identify the locations easily. Therefore the statement "It will be difficult for readers to understand the paper without table." is not acceptable. You may mention that you would like to have figures in different forms.

(iii)Line 368-370: "Areas with higher elevations are called upstream from which water flows towards lower elevations (downstream). Seems not necessary as this is a relatively common understanding. Suggest removing it. Instead, you should discuss the conditions between upstream and downstream, including their land use activities, which will be much more useful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf