Applicability of Single-Borehole Dilution Tests in Aquifers with Vertical Flow

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

A new figure has been introduced (Fig. 5) which shows the evolution of the v_a in depth in the different tests carried out, as well as the v_a average of each well that makes it easier to see the results obtained.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

See the comments made in the following section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: “Figure 1 is too small and difficult to differentiate details. Figure captions must be separated in a), b), c) d) and explain a little more. The photo could be bigger. A more detailed geological-hydrogeological map could help to understand the situation.”

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified Figure 1, enlarging the text and images and differentiating three sections (a, b and c) that are specified in the figure caption. Likewise, hydrogeological information has been added in section a of the figure.

….[Explain what change you have made. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number, paragraph, and line.]

“[updated text in the manuscript if necessary]”

Comments 2: “In the manuscript, authors comment data from Rules dam, but this is not located in figure 1. It could be interesting include this in the figure.”

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included the Rules dam location in figure 1.

Comments 3:  “Line 96. “Mediterranean” coast of Granada: the term Mediterranean is unnecessary, because Granada just has one coast in this sea.”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed “Mediterranean” from the text.

Comments 4: “Line 180. 350 mm for W1 and 300 mm for W2: add “for””

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added “for” in the text.

Comments 5: Line 187. Which is the spring cited in this line, Brine from a hypersaline spring (150 g/L of mainly sodium chloride)? Is this spring in the study area?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information about the location of the hypersaline spring.

Comments 6: “In the previous theoretical considerations, it has to assume that a horizontal flow for the application of formulas, but later for explaining the changes in temperature and concentration a vertical flow it is necessary. I consider authors must explain these questions a little more.”

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that it may be a little contradictory to use this methodology to determine the groundwater v_a in a well where vertical upward flow is detected. But one of the objectives of the work is to determine to what extent the presence of vertical flows can affect the results obtained, and so, the reliability of the method in that context (lines 121-122). At point W1, initially the presence of vertical upward flows was not known, however the T and electrical conductivity profiles suggested these flows, so the v_a results obtained in W1 were rejected, which differed quite a bit from those obtained in W2 (lines 353-356). In W2, with a clear predominance of horizontal flow, the results of the v_a estimation are those considered most acceptable (lines 380-384).

Comments 7: “Maybe some figures showing the relationships between ? and K (Tables 1 and 2) in the different tests could help to explain the results.”

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added figure 6 in which the va profiles are represented as a function of depth in the different tests carried out in W1 and W2. The K data have not been represented because since va and K are related to each other by the hydraulic gradient, the representation of both parameters appears as almost coincident curves.