Hydrogeochemistry and Isotope Hydrology of Surface Water and Groundwater in the Mountain Watersheds of Daqing River, North China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper is thought to be a meaningful study to evaluate the characteristics of surface water and groundwater hydrochemistry and isotope in the mountainous watershed of Daqing River.

It is thought that the effects of altitude and evapotranspiration suggested in the study area are consistent with the existing general research results. Despite the meaningful results as a case study, it is difficult for reviewers to know how this paper differs from other existing studies and in what ways it has originality.

Therefore, in order for this paper to be adopted, authors are expected to need additional revised answers to the following parts:

1. Creativity and Originality of the paper

It is very necessary to present the distinction from other existing studies by describing the key points and characteristics of this paper as claimed by the authors.

2. Interaction between groundwater and surface water

A more detailed explanation of the groundwater-surface water interaction(add section) should be described in the manuscript. In addition, it is necessary to explain the geological characteristics and water quality characteristics of the study area.(Add geologic map)

3. Figures

It is preferable to calculate and display the concentrations of all components as equivalents.(mg/L --> meq/L).

(Fig. 2) Ion type -> Tis does not seem to be an appropriate expression. (delete)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript falls within the aim and scope of the journal. The abstract should be written in a way to attract the readers. The Discussion section is not very successful and a limited number of references appears in the manuscript. It would be wise to give a more international flavour in the sections of Introduction and Results and Discussion. The authors should enhance the quality of the manuscript and give a more international flavour by adding more references from the international literature. Additional comments are listed in the attached .pdf file.

Regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the paper according to the reviewer's opinion and then submitted it. Nevertheless, it is judged that the thesis can be approved only after making some necessary corrections to ensure that the opinions presented by the reviewers are logically reflected.

1. The authors wrote that they revised the reviewer's opinion, but it is very difficult for the reviewer to confirm it accurately. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare and submit a separate response form.
2. The geological map suggested by the reviewer cannot be checked. Also, it is difficult to confirm the description of the endmember mixing analysis of surface water and ground water, which was added to the abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is improved in relation to its initial version. There are still some minor points that require revision as shown in the attached .pdf file.

Regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

None