Evaluating Empirical, Field, and Laboratory Approaches for Estimating the Hydraulic Conductivity in the Kabul Aquifer
, Zargham Mohammadi 1,*, Javad Hussainzadeh 2, Asadullah Farahmand 3, Vianney Sivelle 4 and David Labat 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe evaluation of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is an invaluable tool for the management and protection of groundwater resources. This study aimed to estimate Ks in the shallow aquifer of Kabul city, Afghanistan, in response to an emerging groundwater crisis caused by overexploitation and the lack of an adequate monitoring system for pumping wells. The importance of the hydraulic conductivity parameter has been emphasized.
Overall, a relevant literature review has been conducted. However, the introduction section of the paper lacks a clear statement of the study's objective, the gap it aims to fill in the literature, and the specific parameters related to the topic that will be examined.
In Figure 1, the written description of the color scale on the geological map is very unclear and blurred, and the font size is not adequate, making it unreadable. This figure needs to be corrected.
The figure presents the rate of river discharges and a decrease in the groundwater level. These two parameters should be further discussed in the text of the manuscript.
The primary objective of the work is not only to estimate Ks but also to improve the estimation of groundwater potential across the area, with Ks being a key variable. So, please provide more evaluations of those parameters and method used in the prediction groundwater potentials.
Which methodology is particularly useful in regions where there is an unfavorable balance between water demand and availability?
Some figures show excessive scattering between data points. Please explain the reasons for this inconsistency among the data.
The conclusion section of the paper should include specific results rather than a plain narrative.
As is well known, uncontrolled use of groundwater, along with climate change, is leading to the depletion of groundwater resources in many parts of the world. It is therefore very important to maintain a balance between recharge of groundwater and its withdrawal back to the earth's surface for use. This study is important in that regard. The data and evaluations included in the manuscript provide information to government environmental authorities. In this context, the data and discussions presented in this study also contribute to the literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
Comments 1: [Overall, a relevant literature review has been conducted. However, the introduction section of the paper lacks a clear statement of the study's objective, the gap it aims to fill in the literature, and the specific parameters related to the topic that will be examined.]
|
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the authors have made some changes to improve the clarity. Please check the introduction section, lines 41-46 and 65-70.
|
|
Comments 2: [In Figure 1, the written description of the color scale on the geological map is very unclear and blurred, and the font size is not adequate, making it unreadable. This figure needs to be corrected.] |
|
Response 2: Agree. It is modified. The font size and Legend are magnified to be readable. In the map, figure 1, as this paper focused on the shallow aquifer of the study area, Kabul city, the main geological units were recognized as Alluvium, Conglomerate, and Fine-grained deposits. Therefore, due to the other part of geological units partially ignored in the calculation of Ks, creating boundaries of the study area as hard bedrock (Limestone and Metamorphic rocks).
|
|
Comments 3: [The figure presents the rate of river discharges and a decrease in the groundwater level. These two parameters should be further discussed in the text of the manuscript.]
|
|
Response 3: Thanks for proposing this idea, it’s done. Please see section 2.2, lines 138-144 and 150-151.
|
|
Comments 4: [The primary objective of the work is not only to estimate Ks but also to improve the estimation of groundwater potential across the area, with Ks being a key variable. So, please provide more evaluations of those parameters and method used in the prediction groundwater potentials.]
|
|
Response 4: Thanks for carefully reading the manuscript. Although under current conditions of the aquifer, the areas with the potential for clean groundwater (the water quality lies at a bad level) are minimized around riverbeds, the abstraction of water due to water demand is continued all over the city. On the other hand, despite the aim of the work is not to provide a groundwater potential estimation, it is limited to improving groundwater potential estimations that already have done in the region. So some revisions have been made in the conclusion section to prevent the misunderstanding. Please check lines 626-629.
|
|
Comments 5: [Which methodology is particularly useful in regions where there is an unfavorable balance between water demand and availability?]
|
|
Response 5: It’s revised. Please see lines 623-626.
|
|
Comments 6: [Some figures show excessive scattering between data points. Please explain the reasons for this inconsistency among the data.]
|
|
Response 6: We are grateful to the reviewer for his/her comments, which helped to substantially improve the content of the manuscript. In response to this suggestion, the authors decided to add a few sentences in the revised version. Please see lines 580-584.
|
|
Comments 7: [The conclusion section of the paper should include specific results rather than a plain narrative.]
|
|
Response 7: The authors appreciate the positive review of Reviewer 1. The conclusion section has been modified to be straighter without opening a new plain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSaturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, should be explained in details in the introduction part.
the language of the paper should be modified so non-specialized reader can understand the terms easily.
similarly previous work on the same area (if any) should also be covered and compared.
Al the graphs presented in the manuscript should be colored so can be studied easily.
when the data is collected? year of data collection should be mentioned.
in abstract: 30.0 to 139.8 m/d, the unit should be written in full in first appearance.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
Comments 1: [Saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, should be explained in details in the introduction part.]
|
|
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. Done, please check the introduction section, lines 35-38.
|
|
Comments 2: [the language of the paper should be modified so non-specialized readers can understand the terms easily.] |
|
Response 2: The authors agree with Reviewer 2, however, the manuscript has been reviewed several times and all efforts were based on simplicity and ease of reading. Therefore, the authors ask Reviewer 2 to accept the current language of the manuscript.
|
|
Comments 3: [similarly previous work on the same area (if any) should also be covered and compared.]
|
|
Response 3: Thanks for proposing this idea, it’s done already. There are no similar calculations in the study area. Just one publication from DACAAR was available, which was already discussed in detail in the manuscript, along with using Ks as a result.
|
|
Comments 4: [All the graphs presented in the manuscript should be colored so can be studied easily.]
|
|
Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. Despite the manuscript has inherent complexity, adding colorful graphs makes it more complex and confuses the readers, however, some figures were replaced by colored style to be more interesting.
|
|
Comments 5: [when the data is collected? year of data collection should be mentioned.]
|
|
Response 5: The year of data collection has been added. Please see lines 174-176.
|
|
Comments 6: [in the abstract: 30.0 to 139.8 m/d, the unit should be written in full in first appearance.]
|
|
Response 6: Done. Thanks for carefully reading the manuscript and all of your editorial comments. Please see line 26.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA reliable estimate of hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is essential for effective water management and addressing issues related to water imbalance. This paper presents a comprehensive data collection effort aimed at establishing a robust dataset. Pumping tests, geological well logs, and grain-size distribution based on estimation are combined to evaluate a regional-scale distribution of hydraulic conductivity. The manuscript is well-written and clearly organized, presenting an interesting and accessible idea that would appeal to readers of Water.
I offer the following suggestions for the authors' consideration in revising their paper:
1. For recent literatures, there are similar works that should be cited where effects of skin zones and hydro-mechanical coupling on hydraulic test are given. For instance, doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2020.103604;
2. Increase the font size of Figures 1 and 3 for better readability.
3. In section 3.1, it is highly recommended to classify the aquifer test types incorporating well-log info. Aquifer can be basically classified into three types: (1) Unconfined aquifer, (2) Confined aquifer, and (3) Leaky aquifer. Confirming the aquifer types allows for the application of appropriate mathematical models (type curves) to the response.
4. In Section 4.1, provide more details on the boundary conditions used in AQTESOLV.
5. Including a map showing the large number of wells would be helpful, along with a discussion on the potential interactions between these wells.
Overall recommendation: minor revision.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
Comments 1: [1. For recent literatures, there are similar works that should be cited where effects of skin zones and hydro-mechanical coupling on hydraulic test are given. For instance, doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2020.103604]
|
|
Response 1: The suggested reference along with the other similar works have now been cited in the revised version of the manuscript.
|
|
Comments 2: [Increase the font size of Figures 1 and 3 for better readability.] |
|
Response 2: The authors agree with Reviewer 3, however, in Figure 1 the font size and Legend are magnified to be readable. In the map, as this paper focused on the shallow aquifer of the study area, Kabul city, the main geological units were Alluvium, Conglomerate, and Fine-grained deposits. Therefore, due to, the other part of geological units being partially ignored in the calculation of Ks, creating boundaries of the study area as hard bedrock (Limestone and Metamorphic rocks). The figure has been sent in high quality in the Microsoft Word version of the manuscript. Regarding Figure 3, although Figure 3 has been edited in the revised version of the manuscript, in general, To simplify the conceptual model adding a legend is refused in the previous paper (Mohammaddost et al., 2022), and in this paper, creating a new 3D model is not possible because of unreachability (this is temporary) of datasets used in building 3D model.
|
|
Comments 3: [In section 3.1, it is highly recommended to classify the aquifer test types incorporating well-log info. Aquifer can be basically classified into three types: (1) Unconfined aquifer, (2) Confined aquifer, and (3) Leaky aquifer. Confirming the aquifer types allows for the application of appropriate mathematical models (type curves) to the response.]
|
|
Response 3: Thanks for proposing this idea. The main classification of data is presented in section 3.2 and the manner of using Mathematical equations is discussed in detail in section 3.2.1, supplementary, and sections 4.1 and 4.1.1. However, some sentences have been added in section 3.1. Please check lines 177-180.
|
|
Comments 4: [In Section 4.1, provide more details on the boundary conditions used in AQTESOLV.]
|
|
Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. It’s done. Please see lines 315-316.
|
|
Comments 5: [Including a map showing the large number of wells would be helpful, along with a discussion on the potential interactions between these wells.]
|
|
Response 5: Figures 1,18a, and 18b show the location of all wells in the manuscript, and the discussion about dispersion and their results are presented in section 5 in detail as much as possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
