Concentrations of F−, Na+, and K+ in Groundwater before and after an Earthquake: A Case Study on Tenerife Island, Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 31-36, are more general description and I think did not follow your core research flow path
Line 48, "data extracted from the [2]" should be replace with simple referencing.
Line 54, the unit of hectometer is not normal unit for groundwater extraction. I suggest to use more common unit such as million cubic meter.
Lines 63-66, are more common and general description and did not follow the text well.
I think the figure 1 need some basic modification. land use, the fault and its extend, the location of groundwater abstraction and also the bathymetry and groundwater elevation need to be picture out in such figure.
Based on figure 1, there is direct connection between sea water and extracted water via tunnel. So can we have named such water source as groundwater?
What's a physical attribute of dike in figure 2? Also what's the difference between 2 proposed layer in Figure 2.a
Line 202, the # should be correct.
Figure 5 need legend. Also the I think it's better to such concentration with its spatial character.
How did you validate the raw result test? Did you used ion exchange balance?
Table 2. who did you define the rate of change? did you used such statistical software and approach? what's the significance level?
Line 262, based on fig 1, the groundwater has a basic connection to sea water. So the groundwater character is affected mainly by the sea water rather than precipitation.
I think it's better to change table crowded data in to form of figure. For example, table 5 data can be presented by spatial data analysis. For example, see " Iran groundwater hydrochemistry".
Any reporting of change need to be support with significance level.
What's the limitation in face of such study?
How the groundwater hydrochemistry in the proposed study area is affected by the sea level character?
Its strongly suggested to compare of this research in the context of more similar research paper across the world.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
To see attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Observations
- I consider that in the introduction it is necessary to include studies carried out on the topic, the impact of earthquakes on the change in the chemical composition of groundwater.
- In point 2.4. Water Collection and Sampling Method, detail how the sample was taken (volume, type of bottle, whether it was preserved or not), and indicate under which method or standard it was carried out.
- Detail in lines 194-198, if only one annual sampling campaign was carried out, if the sampling date was the same for all samples, if in situ determinations were carried out (pH, temperature, electrical conductivity)
- Expand the graphs in Figure 5, since the variation is not seen mainly at low concentrations.
- Why graph concentrations in mEq/L and not mg/L? I consider that in mg/L the variation is better observed
- Indicate in the graphs of figure 5, the years in which an earthquake occurred and its magnitude.
- Explain why Na and K do not present concentration changes due to seismic activity.
- Include the Pearson correlation values.
- Iidentify (ID) the sampling points in figure 4
- Place the legend that identifies the tunnels studied in figure 5.
- In lines 221-222 it is mentioned that in 2012, there was a significant increase in F- across all water samples from the 45 tunnels studied, I think they refer to the period and not specifically to the year 2012.
- The figure 9a shows a date of 2030, is this correct?
- Check that the conclusions are specific about the results, do not include a description of the study area and development of the methodology.
- Update bibliographic references, only 10% are recent
Author Response
To see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Based on provided answer to question #6, I think the figure 2 layout should be correct to better picture out the aquifer connection to sea water.
Respond to question #10 is not convincing. The raw laboratory test should be verified by ion exchange balance before any use.
Moderate English editing may be required.
Author Response
To see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsObservations
1. With the Pearson correlation coefficient value (r=-0.2321) reported on line 324, is the following paragraph (lines 333-337) justified?
Author Response
To see file attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
