Groundwater Quality of Some Parts of Coastal Bhola District, Bangladesh: Exceptional Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on the author:

The manuscript is a study on the groundwater quality of the coastal area of Bangladesh, which has some academic value and novelty, but also some problems and shortcomings that need to be revised and improved.

1、The abstract and keywords of the manuscript can summarize the main content and contribution of the paper, but the first sentence of the abstract is too long, and it is suggested to simplify or split it into two sentences. The keywords “embankment” and “water quality” are too broad, and it is suggested to replace them with more specific words, such as “sea water intrusion” and “chemical composition”.

2、The introduction part of the manuscript can introduce the research background, purpose, significance and method, but lacks a review of the relevant literature. It is suggested to add some research progress and shortcomings of domestic and foreign peers, as well as the differences and advantages of this study with other studies. For example, in the third paragraph, after “Recently, numerous types of research have been performed to verify water quality in different coastal parts of Bangladesh”, some specific literature references can be added, and explain how this study is different from them.

3、The materials and methods part of the manuscript can describe the research area, water sample collection and analysis process and instruments in detail, but lacks an explanation of the experimental error and quality control. It is suggested to add some relevant information, such as the number of repetitions, standard materials, blank control, etc. For example, in the sixth paragraph, after “Samples were collected with three replications.”, some data processing and error analysis methods can be added.

4、The results part of the manuscript can use tables and charts to show the measured values of various parameters in the water samples, and compare them with the standard values, but lacks an analysis of the data distribution and change trend. It is suggested to use some statistical methods or models for processing, such as mean, standard deviation, correlation coefficient, regression equation, etc. For example, in the tenth paragraph, after “The outcomes were compared with the drinking water quality of Bangladesh and the World Health Organization.”, some data analysis results and charts can be added.

5、The discussion part of the manuscript can explain the sources and influencing factors of various parameters in the water samples, and compare them with other coastal areas, but lacks an evaluation of the water quality suitability and sustainability. It is suggested to consider some social economic and environmental protection factors, such as population density, water demand, resource management, pollution prevention and control and so on. For example, in the fourteenth paragraph, after “The novelty of this research was that despite being in a coastal District, the deep aquifer water of Bhola was apposite for drinking and irrigation purposes.”, some discussions on the current situation and future development of water resource utilization in this area can be added.

6、The conclusion part of the manuscript can summarize the main conclusions that the groundwater quality in the study area is good and suitable for drinking and irrigation, but it lacks the explanation of the research limitations and the future work direction. It is suggested to add some contents, such as data volume, spatial range, seasonal change, technical improvement and so on.

 

Author Response

Date: 20 April 2023

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2330338

Journal: Urban Science

Title: Groundwater quality of some parts of coastal Bhola district, Bangladesh: Exceptional evidence

 

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript and for giving us the chance to develop our manuscript. You tried your best to upgrade our manuscript by making positive criticisms. No doubt your suggestions helped a lot to upgrade the manuscript. In most cases, your suggestion is good but there are also some problems. You always mentioned paragraphs that are very confusing and need to count the paragraphs from the first one to the last. Rather it would be better if you could suggest to consider the page and line numbers. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand some of your comments also. In spite of that, we tried our best to make the article simple and to make you happy providing suitable explanation. If you are not satisfied yet with our improvement then please make additional comments considering our R1 version as the fresh version. We tried our best to accommodate your suggestion though it was not easy to satisfy you fully. I believe you will accept our inconvenience. The stepwise responses to your comments are provided below.

 

Thanking you

The authors

 

General Comment: The manuscript is a study on the groundwater quality of the coastal area of Bangladesh, which has some academic value and novelty, but also some problems and shortcomings that need to be revised and improved.

General Response: Thank you very much for your generalized comment and for giving us the opportunity to develop the manuscript.

 

Specific Comment 1: The abstract and keywords of the manuscript can summarize the main content and contribution of the paper, but the first sentence of the abstract is too long, and it is suggested to simplify or split it into two sentences. The keywords “embankment” and “water quality” are too broad, and it is suggested to replace them with more specific words, such as “seawater intrusion” and “chemical composition”.

Specific Response 1: Sorry sir, the first part of your first comment is not easily understandable to me. Regarding the first sentence of our abstract, sir I do not fully agree with the comment. Our sentence is originally small it is not a big sentence.

Regarding the keywords, we accepted them and revised the manuscript accordingly to satisfy you. 

Specific Comment 2: The introduction part of the manuscript can introduce the research background, purpose, significance, and method, but lacks a review of the relevant literature. It is suggested to add some research progress and shortcomings of domestic and foreign peers, as well as the differences and advantages of this study with other studies. For example, in the third paragraph, after “Recently, numerous types of research have been performed to verify water quality in different coastal parts of Bangladesh”, some specific literature references can be added, and explain how this study is different from them.

Specific Response 2: Thank you very much. We revised the manuscript with blue color accordingly. If you are not satisfied yet, please suggest us again and we will improve the manuscript again. For making the comments, please consider our R1 version as the fresh version. The revised version for your comment is blue color throughout the text. 

Specific Comment 3: Lacks an explanation of the experimental error and quality control. It is suggested to add some relevant information, such as the number of repetitions, standard materials, blank control, etc. For example, in the sixth paragraph, after “Samples were collected with three replications.”, some data processing and error analysis methods can be added.

Specific Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this point. We improved the point. If you do not like please suggest us again and we will do it accordingly.

 

Specific Comment 4: The results part of the manuscript can use tables and charts to show the measured values of various parameters in the water samples and compare them with the standard values, but lacks an analysis of the data distribution and change trend. It is suggested to use some statistical methods or models for processing, such as mean, standard deviation, correlation coefficient, regression equation, etc. For example, in the tenth paragraph, after “The outcomes were compared with the drinking water quality of Bangladesh and the World Health Organization.”, some data analysis results and charts can be added.

Specific Response 4: Sir, in this manuscript we presented too much data in a simple way mostly in tabulated forms. Our target was to disseminate the information with a numerical value to the local people with the baseline data. That’s why our presentation is like that. Regarding data distribution, another group of our research team is doing that and will be disclosed the information in the near future. Thank you very much sir for making the comments. In this paper, we did mean, and standard deviation, please the tables carefully. If you are not satisfied yet please suggest us again. We will solve the logical problem.

Specific Comment 5: The discussion part of the manuscript can explain the sources and influencing factors of various parameters in the water samples, and compare them with other coastal areas, but lacks an evaluation of the water quality suitability and sustainability. It is suggested to consider some social economic and environmental protection factors, such as population density, water demand, resource management, pollution prevention and control, and so on. For example, in the fourteenth paragraph, after “The novelty of this research was that despite being in a coastal District, the deep aquifer water of Bhola was apposite for drinking and irrigation purposes.”, some discussions on the current situation and future development of water resource utilization in this area can be added.

Specific Response 5: Sorry sir, why did you write fourteen paragraphs? Is it not difficult to count 14 paragraphs? Sir, why you did not write the page number or line number? I cannot match your questions with the paragraph number. Please make the easy question. If the suggestion is itself critical then how will I solve the problem? The journal put the page numbers and line numbers so nicely to the document for making comments for the reviewers. Sir, please make the understandable comment again on the basis of our R1 version. I am waiting for that to solve. Please see the comments of the Editor, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3 are so simple and easily understandable and I believe I made the answer to their questions easily understandable to them. 

Specific Comment 6: The conclusion part of the manuscript can summarize the main conclusions that the groundwater quality in the study area is good and suitable for drinking and irrigation, but it lacks an explanation of the research limitations and the future work direction. It is suggested to add some content, such as data volume, spatial range, seasonal change, technical improvement, and so on.

 Specific Response 6: OK sir. Thank you. We wrote it. Please see our revised manuscript.

 

Professor Dr. Molla Rahman Shaibur

Dept. of Environmental Science and Technology

Jashore University of Science and Technology

Jashore 7408, Bangladesh

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the groundwater quality of two coastal regions of Bangladesh were investigated by analyzing 28 groundwater samples. Physical-chemical properties and metals concentrations of the samples were measured, and then compared with the drinking water quality standards and irrigation water quality standard of Bangladesh, World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. It was found that the water was suitable for drinking and irrigation purposes. The results are solid and the conclusion is reliable.

Here are some suggestions for the authors’ consideration.

1. Line 44. Should “District” be “district”?

 

2   2. Line 72. A “[” is missing.

     3. Part 3. Materials and Methods. Part 3.3 was not found.

     4. Line 200. Remove the “.” in “min.”.

     5. Line 235. Remove the “m” in front of “Metalloids”.

     6. Line 359. Should “Relater” be “Related”?

     7. Line 371. “It seems, he” should be “It seems the”.

     8. Line 437. Remove the “;” after “because”.

     9. Line 510. There might be some mistakes in “from the STW the   of Khulna district”.

 

Author Response

Date: 20 April 2023

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2330338

Journal: Urban Science

Title: Groundwater quality of some parts of coastal Bhola district, Bangladesh: Exceptional evidence

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript and for giving us a chance to develop our manuscript. No doubt your suggestion helped a lot to upgrade the manuscript. In most cases, your suggestion was good. Your suggestion is concrete and specific. We tried our best to make the article simple and to make you happy. If you are not satisfied yet then please make additional comments considering our R1 version as the fresh version. The stepwise responses to your comments are provided below.

 

Thanking you

The authors

 

 

General Comments: In this study, the groundwater quality of two coastal regions of Bangladesh was investigated by analyzing 28 groundwater samples. Physical and chemical properties and metal concentrations of the samples were measured and then compared with the drinking water quality standards and irrigation water quality standards of Bangladesh, the World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. It was found that the water was suitable for drinking and irrigation purposes. The results are solid and the conclusion is reliable.

General Response: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for trying to improve our manuscript. Our team is so much thankful to you for giving us a chance to improve the manuscript.

 

Specific Comment 1: Line 44. Should “District” be “district”?

Specific Response 1: Ok sir, we did it accordingly.

 

Specific Comment 2: Line 72. A “[” is missing

Specific Response 2: Yes sir. We corrected it accordingly.

 

Specific Comment 3: Part 3. Materials and Methods. Part 3.3 was not found.

Specific Response 3: You are absolutely right. We corrected it according to your wish.

 

Specific Comment 4: Line 200. Remove the “.” in “min.”.

Specific Response 4: Ok sir we did it accordingly.

 

Specific Comment 5: Line 235. Remove the “m” in front of “Metalloids”.

Specific Response 5: Ok sir. We did it. Thank you.

 

Specific Comment 6: Line 359. Should “Relater” be “Related”?

Specific Response 6: Yes sir. Thank you very much. You are right.

 

Specific Comment 7: Line 371. “It seems, he” should be “It seems the”.

Specific Response 7: Yes sir. Thank you very much. You are right.

 

Specific Comment 8: Line 437. Remove the “;” after “because”.

Specific Response 8: Yes sir. Thank you very much. We did it.

 

Specific Comment 9: Line 510. There might be some mistakes in “from the STW the of Khulna district”.

Specific Response 9: No sir. What we wrote was correct.

 

Professor Dr. Molla Rahman Shaibur

Dept. of Environmental Science and Technology

Jashore University of Science and Technology

Jashore 7408, Bangladesh

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Date: 20 April 2023

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2330338

Journal: Urban Science

Title: Groundwater quality of some parts of coastal Bhola district, Bangladesh: Exceptional evidence

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript and for giving us a chance to develop our manuscript. No doubt your suggestion helped a lot to upgrade the manuscript. In most cases, your suggestions were very good. Your suggestions were concrete and specific. We tried our best to make the article simple and to make you happy with our development. If you are not satisfied yet then please make additional comments considering our R1 version as the fresh version. The stepwise responses to your comments are provided below.

 

Thanking you

The authors

 

Specific Comment 1: In lines 70 to 71, do you need to capitalize Upazila or just treat it the same as districts? Check out the rest of the article.

Specific Response 1: Ok sir thank you. We revised it as “district” when it was appropriate.

 

Specific Comment 2: In Ref. [14], the original statement “This study reveals that about 85.43% area which is 656.85 km2 is exposed to moderate vulnerability. Only 7.88% area is under low risk, whereas 6.69% area is highly vulnerable.” But in lines 73-75, it states ”A report shows that about 6.69% area of Bagerhat Sadar, Fakirhat, and Rampal upazila is low saline, about 85.43 % is moderate saline and around 7.88% area is high saline [14].” It is totally opposite in its meaning.

Specific Response 2: Ok sir!!! We reviewed the information you mentioned and found that you are absolutely correct if I considered the Abstract of that manuscript. We corrected the information considering the abstract. But in the conclusion, the information that I put was accurate. I think the author did the mistake of putting the information. It is their fault sir.

 

Specific Comment 3: Some of the references in the introduction section seem not relevant to this topic, it is suggested that the authors should carefully cite them.

Specific Response 3: We could understand you. To show you respect we deleted some of the references. But we strongly believe that all the cited references were related to the topic where it was mentioned. Sir, please see the response that we gave to the Editor comments.

 

Specific Comment 4: In the Hydrogeological Characteristics section, the cited materials in referents 44-47 also need to check carefully. It seems not the original source of the reference.

Specific Response 4: Sir, to us this suggestion is somewhat confusing. If you are sure then why you did not provide accurate references suggestion for that information? If you think you could mention those references. Please suggest concrete and specific information to us and we will incorporate those references.

 

Specific Comment 5: In Table 1, the unit of sampling depth should be the same as the definition of the aquifer, eg. m, rather than feet (ft).

Specific Response 5: Thank you. OK, sir!!!! You are absolutely right and we changed it according to your suggestion as “m”.

 

Specific Comment 6: In Table 2, The BNDWQS permissible concentration of NH4+ is 0.05 mg L-1, but in line 320 the NH4+ permissible concentration shows 0.50 mg L-1. Which one is correct?

Specific Response 6: Sir the correct value is 0.50 and we corrected it through the text. Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue.

 

Specific Comment 7: In the discussion section, the authors suggested "On the contrary, only 2 exceeded the WHO permissible limit (Table 2). If we consider the WHO permissible limit, then most of the water samples were safe for drinking purposes. Considering the WHO permissible limit of NH₄⁺ and the geographical position of Bhola District, it is recommended that the DTW water of Bhola be suitable for drinking purposes.". Actually, there are 3 samples that exceeded the WHO permissible limit and 8 samples greater than 1.0 mg L-1. The WHO standard was set up in 1984. Should the authors update this information? Moreover, it is not a good recommendation for newborn children.

Specific Response 7: Sir, you are absolutely right. We corrected it accordingly.

 

Regarding updating the references, sir the true fact is that in the update recommendation, there was missing information. After reading carefully all the information, I especially believe the information about 1984 is covering all sides. Therefore, I put the reference to 1984. Please sir accept our inconvenience.  I think the information about 1984 is the best.

 

Specific Comment 8: In lines 448-449, ref.[14] is cited again here. Please check the opinion in comments 2.

Specific Response 8: Sir, to remove the confusion we deleted this point as you mentioned. Please see the revised version. The author of that manuscript did a mistake, I believe.

 

Professor Dr. Molla Rahman Shaibur

Dept. of Environmental Science and Technology

Jashore University of Science and Technology

Jashore 7408, Bangladesh

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved.

Author Response

Date: 6 June 2023

Manuscript ID: urbansci-2330338

Journal: Urban Science

Title: Groundwater quality of some parts of coastal Bhola district, Bangladesh: Exceptional evidence

 

Response to Editor

 

Dear Prof. Dr. Witchuda Sukjoi

Editor, Urban Science

 

Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript and for giving us the chance to improve the manuscript. You tried your best to upgrade our manuscript by making positive criticisms. Anyway, we tried our best to accommodate all the queries that arose during the evaluation process. Sometimes it was not possible to solve all the questions but we tried to provide the best explanation. If you are not satisfied yet please suggest us considering our revised version (R2) as a fresh version. We considered your suggested version as the fresh version and developed that version with red marked. Please excuse us if we have human errors.

 

Sir, I could not accommodate some technical problems. Please help me or ask the technical person/s of the journal to solve those problems.

1. References arrangement
2. Equations arrangement
3. Some line or spacing problems.

The specific responses to your queries are provided below:

Comment 1: Use Upazila or upazila consistently throughout the manuscript.

Response 1: Sir, we did put upazila accordingly throughout the text. But in the footnotes of the Tables, it was kept as Upazila; this is because we tried to keep the world uniform in the tables footnote. 

 

 

Comment 2: Figure 4 is rather small and can be enlarged.

Response 2: Thank you sir. We did it accordingly. Please see the text.

 

Comment 3: Format of new references needs to be adapted to format of other references

(narrow lines). Some other reference formats also look different.

Response 3: Sir, we tried our best to make it uniform. But we are failed. I do not know the exact reason. I need the technical help from the journal accordingly.

 

If you think the please suggest us again to improve the article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx