Current Status of Drinking Water Quality in a Latin American Megalopolis
, Rodrigo Ventura 1, Carlos E. de Rezende 3, Adacto B. Ottoni 4, Diogo Tschoeke 5, Carlos Cosenza 1, Cristiane Thompson 5,* and Fabiano Thompson 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
These authors have done a good job analyzing a lot of data on public water supply monitoring across the State of Rio de Janeiro, which would be very valuable to have published for their region and beyond. The methodology for reporting completeness of monitoring and quality of results is simple, straightforward and reasonably well explained.
They provide insights into the factors contributing to non-compliance with monitoring in some cities, and clearly have extensive understanding of these challenges, but do not explain the basis for this knowledge. Perhaps working with a social scientist with qualitative research expertise would help? Their expertise here could inform an entire second research project and manuscript, which could in turn inform their policy recommendations.
The Table 2 responsibility framework reflects extensive knowledge of the water quality monitoring systems in SRJ, and deserves far more explanation and justification. It should be published separately as it appears to be a policy recommendation, not a research article.
It is clear the authors have extensive knowledge and understanding of water quality monitoring in SRJ, and have valuable data to present. However, this manuscript needs extensive professional editing before it can be published.
These authors are strongly encouraged to continue their work on the social science and policy aspects, with additional appropriate research expertise in these disciplines.
Author Response
Our reply:
First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for all the comments that were extremely important for the publication of our work. Our answers to the corresponding questions are highlighted in bold right below them.
Thank you for your remarks and suggestions.
Reviewer 1
These authors have done a good job analyzing a lot of data on public water supply monitoring across the State of Rio de Janeiro, which would be very valuable to have published for their region and beyond. The methodology for reporting completeness of monitoring and quality of results is simple, straightforward and reasonably well explained.
They provide insights into the factors contributing to non-compliance with monitoring in some cities, and clearly have extensive understanding of these challenges, but do not explain the basis for this knowledge. Perhaps working with a social scientist with qualitative research expertise would help? Their expertise here could inform an entire second research project and manuscript, which could in turn inform their policy recommendations.
Resp 1) The authors include engineers, economists, oceanographers, biologists, and police makers.
The Table 2 responsibility framework reflects extensive knowledge of the water quality monitoring systems in SRJ, and deserves far more explanation and justification. It should be published separately as it appears to be a policy recommendation, not a research article.
Resp 2) Following the referee recommendations, We have removed the RACI table (Table 2) from this article.
It is clear the authors have extensive knowledge and understanding of water quality monitoring in SRJ, and have valuable data to present. However, this manuscript needs extensive professional editing before it can be published.
Resp 3) The Language editing service of MDPI performed a complete revision of the manuscript.
These authors are strongly encouraged to continue their work on the social science and policy aspects, with additional appropriate research expertise in these disciplines.
Resp 4) We are very grateful for the encouragement to continue this work, wich is so relevant to the quality of life in our city, state, and country.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Current status of drinking water quality in a Latin American Megalopolis
Journal: Water
Comments: This study evaluated the water quality in Latin America Megapolis from 2018 to 2021 based on three parameters (i.e., chlorine, turbidity, and coliform). The cities were dived into four groups according to the quantitative index and qualitative index. Its implicated to propose perspective for water quality monitoring in Latin America Megapolisa according to the results. There were some minor comments:
(1) The method to derive quantitative index and qualitative index should be described in M&M section.
(2) The descriptions about Table 1 in the text were insufficiently, and please strengthen it due to there were so much data in this table.
(3) The role of Figure 2(a) was equivocal in this manuscript, and please describe it explicitly.
(4) The resolutions of all figures should be optimized since they were blur at present form.
Author Response
Title: Current status of drinking water quality in a Latin American Megalopolis
Journal: Water
Comments: This study evaluated the water quality in Latin America Megapolis from 2018 to 2021 based on three parameters (i.e., chlorine, turbidity, and coliform). The cities were dived into four groups according to the quantitative index and qualitative index. Its implicated to propose perspective for water quality monitoring in Latin America Megapolisa according to the results. There were some minor comments:
(1) The method to derive quantitative index and qualitative index should be described in M&M section.
Resp 1) The formulas were added accordingly, lines 96 and 108.
(2) The descriptions about Table 1 in the text were insufficiently, and please strengthen it due to there were so much data in this table.
Resp 2) We performed a complete revision of this section of the manuscript and added an additional paragraph on line 347.
(3) The role of Figure 2(a) was equivocal in this manuscript, and please describe it explicitly.
Resp 3) The dendogram brings a more faithful portrait of possible clusters. We explain to the reader why and leave it free for interpretation on line 695. Statistically, some possibilities appear. We removed the cluster chart because it only brings one possibility.
(4) The resolutions of all figures should be optimized since they were blur at present form.
Resp 4) The resolution of all figures has been increased, keeping the same format.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is much improved, and will be invaluable to the region in working to address water quality and health issues. It is cohesive as a manuscript without the social science insights. This reviewer encourages the authors to work on a second publication with a social scientist. The dendogram belongs in a second article, as the groupings have no real meaning unless they are found to correlate with social, policy or economic factors, for instance.
Minor points:
L 46: Arctic
L53-54: Are "deep learning techniques" still relevant to this article? Are those techniques associated with the social science information that has been removed?
L222-223 How is this progress? Compared to lower %s in earlier years?
L 264 should read: ...prevalence [42].
L 244-246 meaning is unclear, please clarify
L254 should read: ...align fairly well with its water safety plans [WSPs].
L255 The US also has national drinking water quality standards, but in practice they don't completely prevent distribution of contaminated water, e.g. the case of Flint, Michigan and lead.
Author Response
Our reply:
First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for all the comments that were extremely important for the publication of our work. Our answers to the corresponding questions are highlighted in bold right below them.
Thank you for your remarks and suggestions.
Reviewer 1
This is much improved, and will be invaluable to the region in working to address water quality and health issues. It is cohesive as a manuscript without the social science insights. This reviewer encourages the authors to work on a second publication with a social scientist. The dendogram belongs in a second article, as the groupings have no real meaning unless they are found to correlate with social, policy or economic factors, for instance.
Resp) Thanks a lot for the encouragement. We will continue the work, for sure. We have already removed the dendrogram, and will leave it for future analysis.
Minor points:
L 46: Arctic
Resp) Thanks. It’s Adjusted
L53-54: Are "deep learning techniques" still relevant to this article? Are those techniques associated with the social science information that has been removed?
Resp) It is interesting to mention, as a bibliographic review, the existence of the most diverse types of data science models applied to water monitoring. After this insertion, we clarify that our work uses simpler tools, explained in the methodology
L222-223 How is this progress? Compared to lower %s in earlier years?
Resp) This progress has already been better explained. It is due to the fact of comparing recent years with 5 years ago. From the range of 50 to 70%, it went to 80%. The statement is in this sense.
L 264 should read: ...prevalence [42].
Resp) Thanks. It’s Adjusted
L 244-246 meaning is unclear, please clarify
Resp) We have already explained better than among the agents mentioned, that none exercises the function of authority and only one exercises the function of consultation.
L254 should read: ...align fairly well with its water safety plans [WSPs].
Resp) Thanks. It’s Adjusted
L255 The US also has national drinking water quality standards, but in practice they don't completely prevent distribution of contaminated water, e.g. the case of Flint, Michigan and lead.
Resp) Thank you very much for the reported case of extreme relevance to the work. We already inserted a reference [n. 40] about this Michigan episode.
