Modelling Transport and Fate of Copper and Nickel across the South Saskatchewan River Using WASP—TOXI
, Pouya Sabokruhie 2, Markus Brinkmann 1,2,3,4,* and Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents a modeling study on the Cu and Ni transport in the water column and sediment of the South Saskatchewan River by using the WASP-TOXI. I concerned that the presentation of the modeling work in this manuscript is not clear for two main points: 1. model calibration and verification were not demonstrated; 2. the model parameters (water quality ones) needed to be specified in the simulation are not mentioned. Besides, the simulated longitudinal profiles compared to the observed data in Figs. 5 and 6 are almost flat along the modeled domain. This could suggest that there is no need to conduct the model simulation. Therefore, I suggested to reject this manuscript.
Author Response
Author Response: In this study, we have used an existing model developed with HEC-RAS coupled with WASP. This model has performed in previous studies carried out in Athabasca River in Canada for Vanadium, Chlorine and TSS. Hence, model calibration, verification were not demonstrated. However it has been discussed for Copper and Nickel for both water and sediment.
Longitudinal profiles show the observed values - blue and orange diamonds (collected in sampling and analysed in laboratory) and modeled values - blue and orange solid line (modeled data). Hence the straight line coinciding with observed values indicates that model has run in an acceptable manner.
Thank you for your feedback. Hopefully this answers your questions. Let us know if you have more questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Contamination of soils and waters by heavy metals is of widespread occurrence as a result of human activities. Among heavy metals, copper (Cu) and nickel (Ni) are potential pollutants that accumulate at toxic levels in soils, water, crops and the atmosphere. In this regard, the present case study entitled “Modelling transport and fate of Copper and Nickel across the South Saskatchewan River using WASP – TOXI:, is a very novel research work..
This topic is investigated in the literature, and there is a very few references published. However, this paper gives significant contribution to the current knowledge in related fields. The data are sound and it deserves to be published, after minor revisions as:
Abstract is not written as per MDPI Water Journal Format. Plenty of errors observed. Use www.turnitin.com to find and eliminate unnecessary self-repetition and any copied text.
Keywords should not be the same as mentioned in the title or abstract.
The text has many typing and grammatical errors, capitalization issues.
No proper formatting, spacing issues and formalities etc. have not been seen. Please read the Instructions to Authors of MDPI Journal Water to settle arrangement problems.
English style and language requires a profound revision. However, the readability of the manuscript needs to be improved, preferably careful review by a native English speaker.
Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention alongwith brackets, afterwards use Abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
The materials and methods section is very brief. Please add details for analytical methodologies to make it reproducible.
Quality assurance of data is mandatory!!! How many batch, repeats, amendment/chemical grade and for used instruments manufacturers’ user manual and instructions were strictly followed or not!!!
Data is sound. It deserves to be published.
Very Minute Scientific Discussion. It can be improved viz I would have expected slightly greater discussion of how exactly plants growth was affected, more detail on the mechanisms and logical reasoning is required. The current discussion says very little about “Modelling transport and fate of Copper and Nickel across the South Saskatchewan River using WASP – TOXI”.
For the discussion section, not much detailed discussion is going on. This is just restating the observations and results. There is much more scope here for discussing the implications of what these results mean.
Please cite Figure No. in brackets at suitable places for a better connectivity in results and discussion sections as to facilitate the reader.
Please improve the figures/graphs with legends. Please mention replications n = ???
Novelty of this research work is again questionable with reference to practical significance and economic feasibility must be worked and mentioned.
A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed. Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Journal Water References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing. Verify each reference from the original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.
Author Response
Abstract is not written as per MDPI Water Journal Format. Plenty of errors observed. Use www.turnitin.com to find and eliminate unnecessary self-repetition and any copied text.
Author Response: Authors believe that the guidelines for abstract has been followed.
Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
The text has many typing and grammatical errors, capitalization issues.
Author Response: Kindly highlight the lines with errors and we shall resolve the issues.
No proper formatting, spacing issues and formalities etc. have not been seen. Please read the Instructions to Authors of MDPI Journal Water to settle arrangement problems.
Author Response: We have tried to stick to the MDPI Journal formatting guidelines throughout the manuscript.
English style and language requires a profound revision. However, the readability of the manuscript needs to be improved, preferably careful review by a native English speaker.
Author Response: This article has been reviewed by three professors who are native English speakers. Thank you for the feedback.
Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention alongwith brackets, afterwards use Abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
Author Response: Noted and fixed.
The materials and methods section is very brief. Please add details for analytical methodologies to make it reproducible.
Author Response: Noted and fixed.
Quality assurance of data is mandatory!!! How many batch, repeats, amendment/chemical grade and for used instruments manufacturers’ user manual and instructions were strictly followed or not!!!
Author Response: All the measured values were observed through a previous study which has already been published in Chemosphere - Prajapati et al. 2022. That study provides with all the details regarding instrumentation, chemical grade etc.
Data is sound. It deserves to be published.
Very Minute Scientific Discussion. It can be improved viz I would have expected slightly greater discussion of how exactly plants growth was affected, more detail on the mechanisms and logical reasoning is required.
Author Response: Authors do agree that impact on plant growth would have been a very interesting approach, however it fell outside the scope of this study.
Please cite Figure No. in brackets at suitable places for a better connectivity in results and discussion sections as to facilitate the reader.
Author Response: Noted and fixed.
Please improve the figures/graphs with legends. Please mention replications n = ???
Author Response: Noted and fixed to a certain extent.
Novelty of this research work is again questionable with reference to practical significance and economic feasibility must be worked and mentioned.
Author Response: Authors do note that this is not a novel research but a first of its kind on this particular river system.
A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed. Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Journal Water References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing. Verify each reference from the original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.
Author Response: Noted and fixed to a certain extent.
Reviewer 3 Report
dear aothurs
kindly, this MS written with high quality, just in methods need adding some information about sampling, and copper - nickel analysis with which method?
best regards
Author Response
kindly, this MS written with high quality, just in methods need adding some information about sampling, and copper - nickel analysis with which method?
Author Response: More information about sampling and copper - nickel analysis is provided in the publication from where the measured values are taken from. Prajapati et al. 2022 - Chemosphere.
Reviewer 4 Report
I read the paper and found it interesting. There are some comments that should be answered by the authors before further considerations.
Page 3 Lines 111-126: The authors have explained the study goals in a detailed manner. However, it is not clear to the reader what is the role of HEC-RAS model in this study. Please revise this paragraph by adding some information about the role of HEC-RAS.
Page 4 Figure 1: What does the blue dot named as “Lake Diefenbaker” in the legend show? In my opinion, this figure is not very informative to a reader not familiar with the study area. Please add more explanation. Also, please mark the north and south Saskatchewan rivers in the figure. The authors have mentioned the Rocky Mountain several times in the text but it is not clear to the reader the extent of this mountain in the study area. I suggest this figure being embedded in a satellite view map for better representation of the features.
Page 5 Lines 164-167: Please add the location of the gauge station in Figure 1.
Page 9 Figure 4: the figures plotted at right column are cropped. Please check.
Page 13 Figure 6 and Page 14 Lines 351-355: It can be deduced from the figure that simulated concentration is more ore less constant along the river while the measured values change considerably. For example, in June 2021, the measured Cu concentration at the downstream sampling locations is about two times the simulated values. The authors have attributed these differences to “the continuous accumulation of metals in sediments over many years”. Why the authors have not eliminated the background concentration from the measured values?
Author Response
Page 3 Lines 111-126: The authors have explained the study goals in a detailed manner. However, it is not clear to the reader what is the role of HEC-RAS model in this study. Please revise this paragraph by adding some information about the role of HEC-RAS.
Author Response: Noted and fixed.
Page 4 Figure 1: What does the blue dot named as “Lake Diefenbaker” in the legend show? In my opinion, this figure is not very informative to a reader not familiar with the study area. Please add more explanation. Also, please mark the north and south Saskatchewan rivers in the figure. The authors have mentioned the Rocky Mountain several times in the text but it is not clear to the reader the extent of this mountain in the study area. I suggest this figure being embedded in a satellite view map for better representation of the features.
Author Response: Diefenbaker - Its the location where there is water quality monitoring gauge located in Saskatoon. The figure only shows the South Saskatchewan River. The Rocky Mountains are in Alberta (a different province) where it originates.
Page 5 Lines 164-167: Please add the location of the gauge station in Figure 1.
Author Response: Noted and fixed
Page 9 Figure 4: the figures plotted at right column are cropped. Please check.
Author Response: Noted and fixed
Page 13 Figure 6 and Page 14 Lines 351-355: It can be deduced from the figure that simulated concentration is more ore less constant along the river while the measured values change considerably. For example, in June 2021, the measured Cu concentration at the downstream sampling locations is about two times the simulated values. The authors have attributed these differences to “the continuous accumulation of metals in sediments over many years”. Why the authors have not eliminated the background concentration from the measured values?
Author Response: We do not quite understand what you mean by background concentration.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggested to reject this manuscript in the first round.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript according to my previous comments. However, I have two comments regarding the revised version:
1- Page 5 Lines 168-170: “1D modelling can give results that are on par with or better than 2D models for rivers and floodplains where the predominant flow directions and forces follow the main river flow route with less effort and computing resources.” a reference is needed here.
2- My last comment in the previous round of review regarding the “background concentration”: the authors have responded that “We do not quite understand what you mean by background concentration.” At least they could google it to find out what does “background concentration” mean: “The concentration of a substance in an environmental medium (air, water, or soil) that occurs naturally or is not the result of human activities. (2) In exposure assessment, the concentration of a substance in a defined control area, during a fixed period of time before, during, or after a data-gathering operation.” In my opinion, for the present study the second definition is more appropriate. The authors should exclude the background concentration (I hope the authors understand it now) from their measurements in Figure 6.
Author Response
1- Page 5 Lines 168-170: “1D modelling can give results that are on par with or better than 2D models for rivers and floodplains where the predominant flow directions and forces follow the main river flow route with less effort and computing resources.” a reference is needed here.
Authors Response: Noted and fixed.
2- My last comment in the previous round of review regarding the “background concentration”: the authors have responded that “We do not quite understand what you mean by background concentration.” At least they could google it to find out what does “background concentration” mean: “The concentration of a substance in an environmental medium (air, water, or soil) that occurs naturally or is not the result of human activities. (2) In exposure assessment, the concentration of a substance in a defined control area, during a fixed period of time before, during, or after a data-gathering operation.” In my opinion, for the present study the second definition is more appropriate. The authors should exclude the background concentration (I hope the authors understand it now) from their measurements in Figure 6.
Author Response: The authors thank the reviewer for clarifying the context of background concentration in the last comment. However, excluding background concentration would alter the scope of the study which would not be feasible at this particular moment. But, the authors do think that it would be an interesting approach towards looking at concentration trends in freshwater.
Thank you for all your feedback.
