Potential Pollution Loads of the Cikembar Sub-Watershed to the Cicatih River, West Java, Indonesia
, Ahyahudin Sodri 2,*, Nitin Muttil 3, Rafid Risandri Hikmat 4, Adryan Lukman Indira 4 and Arief Dhany Sutadian 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRiver pollution is a significant factor in providing a watershed healthy. Your manuscript could be eligible for consideration for publication after meeting Water Journal standards and responding to the following comments:
1) In my opinion, the manuscript has been written the same as the technical report. The innovation of the study and the necessity of doing research have not been given. The authors should express the advantage of their study in comparison with the others.
2) The introduction is too short and without enough literature review about the previous work in this area.
3) In section 2.2.1. water quality index equation must be given. Because this index is based on national guidance it may not be accessible to others outside of Indonesia.
4) The parameters in equations should be described in the manuscript. (See eq.1 as an example)
5) The reference 6 seems not to be written in English. So, the authors should give more details about the methodology. For example, the methodology of calculating emission factor, etc.
6) The authors have referred to some regions (e.g. Cibadak, etc.) in the results section. However, their boundaries have not been shown on the map in high quality.
7) In Figures 4, 8, It seems the authors have used the IDW method for geostatistical analysis. It seems the results are not correct in some areas at least in areas that are far from your selected villages.
8) In Figure 9, there are some industrial areas which are far from the river. How do you relate these areas to contribute to the river pollution?
9) The authors should clarify the outlets of the considered villages on the river to simply recognize to what extent each village affects the river pollution.
10) The authors have not considered the contribution of stormwater due to the rainfall. It would be better to explain this item in the manuscript.
11) The authors must show the calibration results for included parameters in the equations to ensure about precision of the parameters USC as emission factor.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and provide responses to each comment as follow.
Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting approach to assessing water quality and the model is user friendly with relatively easy to acquire information about a watershed needed.
A few things that need further discussion to help the reader understand the analysis:
1. In the City equivalent ratio given in Table 2 and equation 1, differentiate between rural, urban, and especially inland. Discuss how the value of alpha, the load transfer coefficient, is determined in the context of characteristics of urban, rural, inland areas.
2. In equation 3, discuss how the emission factor for farm animals is determined. Also, how was it determined that 20% of livestock waste entered the river?
3. In equation 4, give units for the industrial sector pollution load and describe how the distance load transfer coefficient and the load transfer coefficient discharge ratio were determined.
2. Discuss how the load transfer coefficient is determined. (lines 109-110)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and provide responses to each comment as follow.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe biggest concern about the submitted work is the lack of available data. In this work, the authors mentioned that biological oxygen demand (BOD) is the only parameter that exceeds the minimum threshold level. While data regarding other pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (Total-N) and total phosphorus (Total-P) were not reported for all the pollution sources. Insufficient data ultimately raise concerns about the conclusions drawn in this study.
Specific comments:
1. L21: It would be better to insert the word 'priority' before 'issues'.
2. L28: Explain the terms at the time of first use.
3. Section 1: The introduction section is very short. The authors need to provide some more background information such as the importance of the study area, pollution sources, current water quality management practices, etc.
4. L40: If the area (West Java) has abundant water resources, how can water shortages occur? Please clarify.
5. L54: Explain the terms at the time of first use.
6. Section 2.1.: Include a table showing the characteristics of the Cikembar sub-watershed including population density, elevation, annual rainfall, land-use pattern, etc.
7. Section 2.2.1.: Briefly explain the Pollution Index method (in a couple of sentences). It would be helpful for the readers to understand the method. Also if possible include the pollution index (PIj) equation.
8. L109-113: Check the font.
9. Table 5: How about the emission factors of TSS?
10. Table 6: How about emission factors for other pollutants?
11. L156-160: Check the font.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and provide responses to each comment as follow.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your responses and corrections.
Author Response
We thank you for your acknowledgment on our responses in Round 1.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript. After the revision, the article is more logically described and scientifically sound. However, some minor improvements are still required before further processing.
1. L104-106: Remove from the introduction section.
2. Figures 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14: Replace with higher resolution ones.
3. In-text citation of Table 2 is missing.
4. L134: ‘Figure 2’ should be changed to ‘Table 2’.
5. As the emission factors are not available for all the parameters, it would be better to include such statements in footnotes where appropriate.
6. Check the figure and table numbers.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
