An Evaluation of the Khubelu Wetland and Receiving Stream Water Quality for Community Use

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is of high impact on the quality of life in the developing countries. The methods and the results are correctly discusse.

The paper is clearly written a part from some inaccuracies in the language: e.g. line 36 populace (population); 112 it leave (it leaves); 395 cleansing (cleaning).

Th acronym EC must be explicited at line 81 and not at line 120.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

this study is important because the water from the wetlands could be used for irrigation, for watering animals and human use. I have some comments and suggestions for the article. I have given them below. They will help improve the text.

Comments and suggestions:

• The reviewer suggests that the literature should include WHO guidelines for drinking water as well as the classification of the EU or selected countries of the world, including the European Union.
• Lines 46-48: In the sentence: „High water velocity in wetlands has been associated with short residence time of water in the wetland, a condition that hinders pollutant and sediment removal [6,7]” provide information in which countries the research was conducted by Meret (2013) and Wang et al. (2014).
• Lines 108-123 (subsection 2.2.). In point 2.2. add a drawing with the locations of water sampling sites and wetlands
• Lines 116-123. The article shows that water samples were collected every month for a period of one year, except for the period from June to August, when there was no water in the piezometers and there was no water in the stream. The period adopted for the research is therefore very short and, unfortunately, it does not fully reflect the hydrological conditions (no longer test period, ie wet, medium and dry period). The authors do not specify the hydrological conditions in the watercourse during these 9 months of research. This is important information in the context of the work assumptions.
• Lines 191-197: please add the unit for pH values, e.g .: from 6.32 pH to 7.11 pH.
• Line 249: p-value writing needs to be changed to p <0.01.
• Lines 281-282: Please check this conclusion and compare it with the sentence in lines: 21-22.
• Line 380: Please provide information about magnesium.
• Line: 422. Two dots. Delete one.

Questions for the research results chapter:

What is the error of the research methods presented in the article?

- Please provide the values ​​of the correlation coefficient between the measuring stations?

To assess the quality of utility water, information is needed on hydrological data from the analyzed period. This information is not available at work. Please complete this. It is important because the authors write in lines: 294-298 about loads: „In a study by Hubbard et al. [50] high nutrient loads have 294 been associated with direct input by animals during grazing, when compared to other 295 land uses like arable agriculture. There might also possibly be an external loading of phos- 296 phates, which may be associated with decomposition of plant material and their leaching 297 from soil [51] into the stream”. The lack of information on the values of flows in watercourses does not allow for the calculation of loads. The entry in the conclusions (lines 394-396): "It is further recommended that future studies assess self- 394 cleansing ability of the stream, so as to inform hydrological function that is expected from 395 the wetland on Senqu River and transboundary basin" is redundant .

For chapter conclusions:

As these are preliminary research, from a very short period of time, this should be completed in the abstract and in the conclusions. It should be remembered that on the basis of such a short period of research, no far-reaching conclusions can be drawn !!!

There is a lack of what innovative elements, important for the development of science, are introduced by this article? I am asking the Authors for an answer also in relation to similar research by other authors. It is therefore necessary to supplement the discussion of the results based on other studies by other authors.

Regarding the first statement that "Research has shown that stream water from wetlands is not suitable for human consumption, but has a great potential for irrigation of crops and watering animals", these are very preliminary conclusions. And it should be noted.

Please correct / complete the manuscript. Then the work will be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study assessed the water quality status of Khubelu wetland and stream using various water quality parameters to determine their suitability for use.

I would suggest clearly defining the purpose and hypothesis of the study at the end of the introduction to the article.

The results section should summarize the results. I would suggest presenting numerical values ​​in this section as in the summary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf