Development on Surrogate Models for Predicting Plume Evolution Features of Groundwater Contamination with Natural Attenuation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed manuscript titled “Development on Surrogate models for Predicting Plume Evolution Features of Groundwater Contamination with Natural Attenuation". The paper has interesting results and is properly presented in the context of a scientific problem. The findings of this study offer effective generic surrogate models along with a scientific basis and investigation approach reference for environmental risk management and remediation pertaining to the commonly existed groundwater contamination. I do not propose any additional comments. I recommend its publication in the present form. I am convinced that presented aspect is interesting to journal's audience of "Water".
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorspg.6;Table 2
> I believe that will be nice to briefly explain all variables in Table 2 in order to readers better understand considered components in modeling with described surrogate aquifer model.
-----------
pg.9;Figure 4
> Can you comment Figure 4 in terms of what was expected and what was achieved?
> Is there any agreement?
-----------
pg.10;Table 3
In Table 3 annotations (table footer) there are some explanations that I do not totally agree...
"...indicating that parameter changes have a significant impact on the results..."
In model testing (with ANOVA) we may test individual parameters ( beta_i ) with individual hypothesis like:
H0: insignificant parameter ( beta_i = 0 ) ( unnecessary to the parsimonious model )
H1: significant parameter ( beta_i ≠ 0 ) ( crucial to the parsimonious model )
This is not the same to say that "...parameter changes have a significant impact..."
ANOVA actually tests the presence/absence in a linear model...
With this... Please review your text (Lns. 281-302)
-----------
pg.10;Table 3
Since you are basing your model interpretation in statistical therms, you should first verify the ANOVA standard assumption for homoscedasticity... for instance with Cochran's test?
From Table 3 ANOVA's results...
It seems that you are imposing the "same model" to describe "time profile" (T-AMPS), "area propagation" (AMPS) and "concentration profile" (MC-AMPS)...
Table 3 results are indicating that, in fact, each RESPONSE has its own model!
You also found the same conclusion in section... 3.3.3 Model reliability increasing by dimension deduction
-----------
pg.12;Figure 5
I don't understand Fig.5
I don't know what kind of information you can conclude from this 3D plot...
Any comment on this figure?
-----------
equations (8) - (17)
> these model equations are NOT LINEARLY dependent upon parameters!
ANOVA testing assumes LINEAR MODELS in respect to parameters and cannot be used in these cases
> these mutually interdependent models are severally prone to LOCAL MINIMA (false convergence)
How did you workout this aspect?
-----------
Final comment:
> your "surrogate models" need to be tested in respect to REAL PREDICTION of EXPERIMENTAL results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Authors,
Having carefully examined the manuscript titled "Development of Surrogate Models for Predicting Plume Evolution Features of Groundwater Contamination with Natural Attenuation," I find it to be a valuable contribution to groundwater system modeling. However, there are areas for improvement:
Abstract: Include key findings with numerical values to enhance research credibility. Additionally, offering insights into future study directions would enrich the abstract. Introduction: Rewrite this section to provide a broader context and appeal to an international audience. Adding references like Qaiser, F. U. R., Zhang, F., Pant, R. R., Zeng, C., Khan, N. G., & Wang, G. (2023). Characterization and health risk assessment of arsenic in natural waters of the Indus River Basin, Pakistan. Science of The Total Environment, 857, 159408 would provide an international perspective and facilitate comparisons with related studies. Sections 3.1 to 3.4: Instead of merely presenting results, consider incorporating a comparative analysis to highlight similarities and differences with relevant literature. This approach would enrich the discussion and deepen understanding. Discussion (Section: 3.5): Strengthen this section by providing detailed comparisons with similar publications. Emphasize the significance of the results and their implications for the field. Figures: Enhance the quality of figures to improve visual clarity and comprehension for readers. Conclusion: Condense this section for conciseness while effectively summarizing the main findings and their implications. Additionally, I suggest editing the language throughout the manuscript for clarity and coherence. Thank you.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear Editor,
Having carefully examined the manuscript titled "Development of Surrogate Models for Predicting Plume Evolution Features of Groundwater Contamination with Natural Attenuation," I find it to be a valuable contribution to groundwater system modeling. Thank you.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your work improvements.
