Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal–Electricity Agglomeration Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· The title is suitable in terms of formatting, but would it be possible to correct the wording? To make it more accurate with the content of the article.
· Not all figures are clearly visible, and legends are illegible. If possible, change the design.
· The references are not correct, it needs to be checked.
· All dots and commas should be checked.
· All the subscript and superscript should be checked.
· Review all designations (abbreviations), they can be confusing.
· Review all numbers, no need to write out 112.00 mg/L. More correct, academically, is 112 mg/L. No extra zeros are needed.
· When releasing compounds as ions, e.g. Ca2+, then add that it's not just Ca2+ ions, it's an ion. It's just more academically correct.
· Markings. Figure or Fig.
· Did you also study or observe how silicon (Si) behaves in this system?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMore academically correct.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area” (ID: Water 2996225).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
(1) The title is suitable in terms of formatting, but would it be possible to correct the wording? To make it more accurate with the content of the article.
The author's answer: corrections have been made to some of the titles in the article
(2)Not all figures are clearly visible, and legends are illegible. If possible, change the design.
The author's answer: unclear figures in the article have been modified
(3)The references are not correct, it needs to be checked.
The author's answer: the references have been uniformly revised
(4)All dots and commas should be checked.All the subscript and superscript should be checked.Review all designations (abbreviations), they can be confusing.
The author's answer: the punctuation and ion superscripts in the article have been uniformly revised, and the abbreviations of the names have been carefully checked
(5)Review all numbers, no need to write out 112.00 mg/L. More correct, academically, is 112 mg/L. No extra zeros are needed.
The author's answer: all integers have been modified
(6)Did you also study or observe how silicon (Si) behaves in this system?
The author's answer: at present, no relevant research has been conducted on Si.
We are grateful for the invaluable feedback provided by the reviewers, and we look forward to the opportunity to improve our manuscript in response to their guidance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study the authors assessed the hydrochemical characteristics, formation mechanisms, and sources of different water bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area. Moreover, the data were submitted to statistical analysis.
Please, check the whole manuscript carefully for typos for example in lines 109-111 and 333-353 – anions and cations must be written correctly: for example, 
instead of SO42-.
Lines 65-70: “The aim of the study is to…” is missing.
From line 112 must be another section titled statistical analysis and the authors should briefly described the used tests.
Line 115-116: The meaning of phrase is not understood. English must be corrected.
Lines 109-110: The authors should indicate the information about the equipment as name, model, brand, city, country. Also, the authors should present in detail the analysis methods or to indicate bibliographic data with published parameters of these methods (if there are any).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLines 65-70: “The aim of the study is to…” is missing. The phrase is not understood.
Line 115-116: The meaning of phrase is not understood. English must be corrected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area” (ID: Water 2996225).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
(1)Please, check the whole manuscript carefully for typos for example in lines 109-111 and 333-353 anions and cations must be written correctly: for example, …… instead of SO42-.
The author's answer: the typos in the article have been corrected accordingly and written according to the standard.
(2)Lines 65-70: “The aim of the study is to…” is missing.
The author's answer: the content of lines 65-70 in the article has been modified
(3)From line 112 must be another section titled statistical analysis and the authors should briefly described the used tests.
The author's answer: the testing method has been briefly described in the analysis section of the article
(4)Line 115-116: The meaning of phrase is not understood. English must be corrected.
The author's answer: corrections have been made to the language section in 115-116
(5)Lines 109-110: The authors should indicate the information about the equipment as name, model, brand, city, country. Also, the authors should present in detail the analysis methods or to indicate bibliographic data with published parameters of these methods (if there are any).
The author's answer: the name, model, and country information parameters of the testing equipment used have been indicated.
We are grateful for the invaluable feedback provided by the reviewers, and we look forward to the opportunity to improve our manuscript in response to their guidance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present paper reports the hydrochemical characteristics and their formation mechanisms in different waters in Ordos Basin. Generally, the paper is not well organized although it presents practical values for local water environment protection. The paper looks like a project report to some extent. Deeper discussion and improvements in language are recommended. The detailed comments are as follows.
Abstract:
In the Abstract, the importance of the water resources / environmental protection in Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area could be stated in 1 sentence as a background of this case study.
Lines 17-20: The sentence is confusing. Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+,K+ belong to cations instead of anions.
Line 24: It is weird to divide the "unknown" source as an individual one.
In the end of Abstract, it is suggested to emphasize the theoretical or practical value of your findings.
Introduction:
When referring to a literature using the format "author (year)", please only keep the family names of authors, rather than their full names.
Lines 42-60: you have mentioned many studies conducted in coal area. However, they are in a very extensive geographic scope. You should focus more on previous studies adjacent to your study area.
Lines 68-70: the sentence is incomplete.
M & M:
Fig. 1: the legend is not clear enough.
Section 2.2: the "treatment" in the heading should be changed as "analyses" or "measurements".
Please make it clear how you define the "shallow" and "deep" groundwater.
Lines 97-98: what is the sampling frequency? How many sampling campaigns were conducted? A more detailed description on your sampling design is necessary.
Line 113: was the principal component analysis used in this study?
Results:
Line 189: Fig 7?
Line 198: please delete the " 60.21%".
Line 207: what is the meaning of "deep Na"?
Line 250: the sentence is not clear.
Line 267: the expression " some correlation" is confusing.
Lines 272-277: the description of Gibbs graph should be moved to "M & M" section.
Reference list:
The reference list is in a mass. For example, doi is available for some references but lacked for others; many papers written in Chinese was not marked.
Please carefully check the super/subscripts for ions and units, and the correct uses of punctuations throughout the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area” (ID: Water 2996225).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Abstract:
(1)In the Abstract, the importance of the water resources / environmental protection in Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area could be stated in 1 sentence as a background of this case study.
The author's answer: the importance of water resources in the abstract has been supplemented and explained.
(2)Lines 17-20: The sentence is confusing. Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ belong to cations instead of anions.
The author's answer: the incorrect statements in lines 17-20 have been corrected.
(3)Line 24: It is weird to divide the "unknown" source as an individual one.
The author's answer: in Gao F X，Jiang F，Zhou J L, et al. Preliminary Analysis of the Chemical Characteristics and Boron Sources of Surface Water and Groundwater in the Cherchen River Basin of Xinjiang [J/OL]. Environmental Science,1-14[2024-05-13],it divides the unknown source into a single source.
(4)In the end of Abstract, it is suggested to emphasize the theoretical or practical value of your findings.
The author's answer: added practical value to the end of the abstract
Introduction:
(5)When referring to a literature using the format "author (year)", please only keep the family names of authors, rather than their full names.
The author's answer: the citation format in the article has been modified to retain the author's surname
(6)Lines 42-60: you have mentioned many studies conducted in coal area. However, they are in a very extensive geographic scope. You should focus more on previous studies adjacent to your study area.
The author's answer: the coal related research in lines 42-60 has been modified to be related to the study of adjacent areas
(7)Lines 68-70: the sentence is incomplete.
The author's answer: The semantics of lines 68-70 have been modified
M & M:
(8)Fig. 1: the legend is not clear enough.
The author's answer: Fig. 1 has been modified again
(9)Section 2.2: the "treatment" in the heading should be changed as "analyses" or "measurements".
The author's answer: the processing in the 2.2 title has been changed to measurements
(10)Please make it clear how you define the "shallow" and "deep" groundwater.
The author's answer: according to the “Sun L,Liu T X,Duan L M,et al. Hydrochemical Characteristics and Fluorine Distribution and Causes of Different Water Bodies in Pingshuo Mining Area [J]. Environmental Science,2022,43(12):5547-5559.”, supplementary explanations have been provided for shallow and deep groundwater in the text.
(11)Lines 97-98: what is the sampling frequency? How many sampling campaigns were conducted? A more detailed description on your sampling design is necessary.
The author's answer: the present study collected water samples from the study area in April, June, Sep-tember, and November 2021–2023
(12)Line 113: was the principal component analysis used in this study?
The author's answer: this study did not use principal component analysis
Results:
(13)Line 189: Fig 7?Line 198: please delete the " 60.21%".Line 207: what is the meaning of "deep Na"?
The author's answer: Fig. 7 has been modified to Fig. 4, with 60.21% removed and modifications made to the deep Na language.
(14)Line 250: the sentence is not clear.Line 267: the expression " some correlation" is confusing.Lines 272-277: the description of Gibbs graph should be moved to "M & M" section.
The author's answer: 250 sentences have been modified, some correlations in lines 267 have been changed to positive correlations, and the description of Gibbs diagrams in lines 271-277 has been moved to the M&M section.
Reference list:
(15)The reference list is in a mass. For example, doi is available for some references but lacked for others; many papers written in Chinese was not marked.
The author's answer: The references have been modified to a unified format.
(16)Please carefully check the super/subscripts for ions and units, and the correct uses of punctuations throughout the paper.
The author's answer: Modifications have been made to the superscript, subscript, and punctuation issues in the article.
We are grateful for the invaluable feedback provided by the reviewers, and we look forward to the opportunity to improve our manuscript in response to their guidance.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with the authors' answers received to most of my questions/comments: the authors did not present in detail the analysis methods or indicate bibliographic data with published parameters of these methods (if there are any).
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area” (ID: Water 2996225).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
The authors did not present in detail the analysis methods or indicate bibliographic data with published parameters of these methods (if there are any).
The author's answer: the source of the analysis method in the article has been provided, and relevant references have been added.
We are grateful for the invaluable feedback provided by the reviewers, and we look forward to the opportunity to improve our manuscript in response to their guidance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved following the comments from reviewers. I would like to recommend it to be published in the present form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is generally good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Hydrochemical Characteristics, Mechanisms of Formation, and Sources of Different Water Bodies in the Northwest Coal-Electricity Agglomeration Area” (ID: Water 2996225).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.