Estimation of Chlorine Concentration in Water Distribution Systems Based on a Genetic Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy to recommend the paper underreview for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

I am happy to recommend the paper underreview for publication.

R: Thanks for this possitive evaluation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the manuscript is well written and appropriate to be published with some minor modifications, mainly on:

1. Introduction section is too lengthy. Consider shortening the elaboration of each study that the authors cited or even remove some studies that are not really relevant to the present study.

2. Many sentences are very lengthy and can be easily broken down to improve readability.

Detail comments are stated in the annotated PDF. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Overall, the manuscript is well written and appropriate to be published with some minor modifications, mainly on: Introduction section is too lengthy. Consider shortening the elaboration of each study that the authors cited or even remove some studies that are not really relevant to the present study.  Many sentences are very lengthy and can be easily broken down to improve readability. Detail comments are stated in the annotated PDF.

R: The introduction has been summarized and only those most relevant works are now included and moreover we have used some more sentence structure touch up and spell checking. Finally the suggested corrections included in the PDF file have been also applied correctly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good and valuable research to inform future water quality planning

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Good and valuable research to inform future water quality planning

R: Thanks for this possitive evaluation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for an interesting work carried out by the authors. I am suggesting some suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1. There is a need to improvement in section 2. The Genetic Algorithm. I urged authors to cite a few literatures on it.

2. Figure 3 is not clear. Please provide a clear figure.

3.  There are 13 Figures in the manuscript. Some figures can be merged. However, I am leaving it to the authors to decide. However, 13 Figures are too much.

4.  Authors have presented the simulation results. May the author present it in the methodology sections how they have done it. It's not coming clearly now in the manuscript.

5. Proposed methodology is interesting.

6. Conclusion section may be extended.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

C4. Thank you for an interesting work carried out by the authors. I am suggesting some suggestions to improve the manuscript: There is a need to improvement in section 2. The Genetic Algorithm. I urged authors to cite a few literatures on it.

R4: Authors thank reviewer for your valuable feedback on our paper. In the revised version, we have included a couple of references in section 2, namely: Mirjalili & Mirjalili (2019), Katoch et al. (2021).

C5. Figure 3 is not clear. Please provide a clear figure.

R5: You are right, Figure 3 has been improved to make it understandable, in the revised version it has been divided and it is numbered as Figure 3 and 4, respectively. In Figure 3 only the basic schematic diagram of the WDS is presented, whereas in Figure 4 some topological information is included.

C6. There are 13 Figures in the manuscript. Some figures can be merged. However, I am leaving it to the authors to decide. However, 13 Figures are too much.

R6: You are right, however, due to all Figures are important to explain our results we have decided to keep them.

C7. Authors have presented the simulation results. May the author present it in the methodology sections how they have done it. It's not coming clearly now in the manuscript.

R7: In the reviewed version we explain during the early stages of the methodology how the simulation results used as the calibration objective, presented in Figure 4 (now Figure 5 in the reviewed version), are obtained. May this help provide a better understanding of the proposed methodology.

C8. Proposed methodology is interesting.

R8. Thanks for this positive comment.

C9. Conclusion section may be extended.

R9. In the revised version we have extended the conclusion section.