Validation of an Enhanced Drinking Water Temperature Model during Distribution
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The rapporteur would like to have an idea of the number of private connections that exist around case study 2 zone, and how many of these installations were considered in the model?
>> The entire city had ca. 212,000 inhabitants in 2020 (ca. 90,000 homes); area A had ca. 10.000 inhabitants (in ca. 4,000 homes) and area B ca. 7,000 inhabitants (in ca. 2500 homes). The measurements were done on hydrants, so no domestic drinking water installations were considered, but the demand of all was taken into account. we have added in line 358 “(ca. 10,000 and 7,000 respectively)”.
Since the study is about modeling drinking water temperature, why, except for Legionella prevention, other effects of high drinking water temperature on living things are not mentioned in the work?
There is a large scientific literature on Drinking Water Temperature Effects on living things, it would be interesting to strengthen this work by providing information on the dangers of temperatures above 25 °C in drinking water.
>> This study is about the drinking water temperature itself, and how to model it. There are other papers about the effect of drinking water temperature on microbial water quality. We have added a few references, specifically related to water quality in the DWDN. In line 30 we have added “Temperature is especially relevant for the microbial water quality of the drinking water in the DWDN [1, 2]”, with the two most relevant references (new references in his paper).
[1] Calero Preciado, C., J. Boxall, V. Soria-Carrasco, S. Martínez, and I. Douterelo, Implications of climate change: How does increased water temperature influence biofilm and water quality of chlorinated drinking water distribution systems? Frontiers in Microbiology, 2021. 12: p. 658927.
[2] Ahmad, J.I., M. Dignum, G. Liu, G. Medema, and J.P. van der Hoek, Changes in biofilm composition and microbial water quality in drinking water distribution systems by temperature increase induced through thermal energy recovery. Environmental Research, 2021. 194: p. 110648.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors developed a model water temperature model during distribution. The reviewer thinks that major revisions are needed before publication to the journal.
1) As a usual style of scientific writing, the methods must be explained in the materials and method section before the results and discussion section. Follow the general format of scientific writing consisting of “Introduction”, “Materials and method”, “Results” “Discussion” and “Conclusion”. Current writing style (“3. Case 1” and “4, case 2”) deviates from the scientific writing style. In addition, “Case study 1” and “2” in Table 2 must be moved from the discussion section to the materials and method section. In addition, the lines 290 – 307 (the beginning part of section 3.1) must be moved from the “Case” section to the “Materials and method” section. Lines 413 – 424 also has to be moved to the materials and method section. Violation from the scientific writing cannot be overlooked.
2) Lines 141 – 164 as to figure 1a, 1c and 1b. Avoid the use of an itemizing format in this section. The authors can use the general paragraph format. The same indication can be applied to the section Lines 227-240.
3) In the section of “2.3 Model normalisation for validation”, the measurement method with the time resolution and the temperature resolution has to be mentioned.
4) In figure 5, horizontal ax must be explained.
5) Legends in figure 5 are not accurate. Use the same expressions for water(t). In addition, it is necessary to explain what are red short dash lines 1 – 9.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe reviewer does not notice fatal problems in the language. However, the manuscrit does not follow the scieitific writing style.
Author Response
1) As a usual style of scientific writing, the methods must be explained in the materials and method section before the results and discussion section. Follow the general format of scientific writing consisting of “Introduction”, “Materials and method”, “Results” “Discussion” and “Conclusion”. Current writing style (“3. Case 1” and “4, case 2”) deviates from the scientific writing style. In addition, “Case study 1” and “2” in Table 2 must be moved from the discussion section to the materials and method section. In addition, the lines 290 – 307 (the beginning part of section 3.1) must be moved from the “Case” section to the “Materials and method” section. Lines 413 – 424 also has to be moved to the materials and method section. Violation from the scientific writing cannot be overlooked.
>> We agree that the case studies have to be described in the “Materials and method”, and “Results” Section. We feel that former section 3.1 (and 4.1) described the M&M, and 3.2 (and 4.2) described the results. Therefor Section 3.1 has been moved to the Materials and Methods section (now Section 2.5); id for Section 4.1 (now Section 2.6). A results section was created where former Section 3.2 and 4.2 are now numbered Section 3.1 and 3.2. Numbering of the sections are updated as well.
2) Lines 141 – 164 as to figure 1a, 1c and 1b. Avoid the use of an itemizing format in this section. The authors can use the general paragraph format. The same indication can be applied to the section Lines 227-240.
>> The itemizing format was removed.
3) In the section of “2.3 Model normalisation for validation”, the measurement method with the time resolution and the temperature resolution has to be mentioned.
>> The information was added for both cases in their respective descriptions. In line 300 it was added “with a resolution of ± 0.1 °C”. In line 351 it was added “with a resolution of ± 0.05 °C”. The logging frequency was already mentioned in the text, in line 317 (now 312) for case 1; in line 423 (now 352) for case 2.
4) In figure 5, horizontal ax must be explained.
>> Now figure 3, in the caption “against time (h) on the horizontal axis” has been added.
5) Legends in figure 5 are not accurate. Use the same expressions for water(t). In addition, it is necessary to explain what are red short dash lines 1 – 9.
>> We assume that the reviewer is referring to Figure 3. In the caption “with vertical dashed lines and numbers” has been added. The legend has been updated to show Twater (t) for location L3.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors submitted the revised manuscript. The reviewer thinks that the manuscript can be published after minor revision.
1) The subheading "3.1 Results Case 1", "3.2 Results Case 2" and "4.2 TSoI" are not appropriate for scientific research paper. The reviewer suggests to use "3.1 Case study for single pipe", "3.2 Case study for distribution network", and "4.2 (Estimation of ?, Effect of ?) TSoI" may be more appropriate instead. In addition, consider the movement of a part of "2.5 Description Case 1 - Single pipe, Ø160 mm PVC" including the explanation on Figure 3 to the results section, because the section in the materials and method section is too long and the authors describe measured results in this section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe reviewer does not find fatal problems in the language.
Author Response
The subheading "3.1 Results Case 1", "3.2 Results Case 2" and "4.2 TSoI" are not appropriate for scientific research paper. The reviewer suggests to use "3.1 Case study for single pipe", "3.2 Case study for distribution network", and "4.2 (Estimation of ?, Effect of ?) TSoI" may be more appropriate instead.
>> We have changed the subheading names of 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2 in line with your suggestions.
In addition, consider the movement of a part of "2.5 Description Case 1 - Single pipe, Ø160 mm PVC" including the explanation on Figure 3 to the results section, because the section in the materials and method section is too long and the authors describe measured results in this section.
>> We have moved the figure (now figure 4) to section 3.1, and some text that belongs to the figure.
