Analysis of the Impact Area of the 2022 El Tejado Ravine Mudflow (Quito, Ecuador) from the Sedimentological and the Published Multimedia Documents Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes the manner that the El Tejado ravine mudflow, affected the city of Quito. The paper is generally well-written, but it can be improved if the triggering of the flow is better illustrated. The source area must be better described with relevant photos and cross-sections. Rainfall data, if available, should be given in figures/tables.  Triggering, at least qualitatively, can be compared with the mechanism, described by the references below.

 

Furthermore, the paper will be improved if the grain size distribution is given in graphical form (not table) and other properties (e.g. PI) and soil classification name of the flow material are given.

 

REFERENCES

 

Di B, CA Stamatopoulos, AC Stamatopoulos, E Liu, L Balla. 2021, Proposal, application and partial validation of a simplified expression evaluating the stability of sandy slopes under rainfall conditions. Geomorphology 395, 107966

 

Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D., Wong, P.C.P., Yeung, F.J., 2004. Evaluation of landslide triggering mechanisms in model fill slopes. Landslides 1(3), 173–184.

 Lambe T.W. and Whitman R., 1969. Soil Mechanics, MIT, Wiley, New York. (CHAPTER on soil stability with flow)

 

Author Response

Valencia, May 25th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by the peer-reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

The authors have tried to address all your comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript, including figures and tables.

Every comment is answered separately to understand better. Also, in the new text, corrections are displayed to follow them.

 

Comment: The paper describes the manner that the El Tejado ravine mudflow, affected the city of Quito. The paper is generally well-written, but it can be improved if the triggering of the flow is better illustrated.

Answer: The authors thank the reviewer for their time reading and commenting on the manuscript and appreciate the valuation. The study has the scope of analyses of the impacted area, so we have tried to focus on that in the new suggested title and in the objectives. Therefore, we introduce new insights in the reviewed version.

 

C: The source area must be better described with relevant photos and cross-sections. Rainfall data, if available, should be given in figures/tables.  Triggering, at least qualitatively, can be compared with the mechanism, described by the references below.

A: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate the contributions in the bibliography and have used them in the new release. We have improved the source area's description and included a view image. However, detailed rainfall data is not available in the head of the hydrological basin, only a generic value (included now) and more detailed data in the down area of the city where the pluviometry was very different (Quito has a particular compartmentation climate meteorology).

 

C: Furthermore, the paper will be improved if the grain size distribution is given in graphical form (not table) and other properties (e.g. PI) and soil classification name of the flow material are given.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. It was taken into account and included in a graphical picture.

Thanking you in advance for your attention, receive a greeting:

 

Francisco Javier Torrijo Echarri

E-mail address (corresponding author): [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the El Tejado ravine mudflow from the perspective of sedimentology and published multimedia documents. The paper describes the occurrence and impact of the event and discusses the causes of the disaster. The study has important scientific and social significance.

However, there are some obvious spelling errors in the paper, such as "adress" in Table 1. Additionally, I noticed serious writing issues, especially errors in the citation format. Correct citation format is essential for readers to understand and verify research results. The citation numbers should not directly replace the content they refer to. After removing the citation, the sentence should still be complete. However, the citations in this paper do not follow this principle, resulting in many unreadable sentences. For example, line 108: "obtained from [16]" should be "obtained from Epmaps [16]" The same problem also occurs in lines 65, 140, 141, 222, 244, 248, 280, 281, 285, 331, 346, 347, 365, 369, 405, 406, 416, 429, 430, 468, 469, 552, 555, and 571.

There are also some other fundamental issues. I recommend that the authors carefully check and correct the paper according to the requirements of academic papers.

Therefore, it is recommended that the authors first focus on correcting the basic format and language issues of the paper to improve its quality and readability.

Author Response

Valencia, May 25th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

First, the authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by the peer-reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

The authors have tried to attend to all your comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript, figures, and tables.

Every comment is answered separately to understand better. Also, in the new text, corrections are displayed to follow them.

 

Comment: The paper analyzes the El Tejado ravine mudflow from the perspective of sedimentology and published multimedia documents. The paper describes the occurrence and impact of the event and discusses the causes of the disaster. The study has important scientific and social significance.

Answer: The authors thank the reviewer for their time reading and commenting on the manuscript and appreciate the valuation.

 

C: However, there are some obvious spelling errors in the paper, such as "adress" in Table 1. Additionally, I noticed serious writing issues, especially errors in the citation format. Correct citation format is essential for readers to understand and verify research results. The citation numbers should not directly replace the content they refer to. After removing the citation, the sentence should still be complete. However, the citations in this paper do not follow this principle, resulting in many unreadable sentences. For example, line 108: "obtained from [16]" should be "obtained from Epmaps [16]" The same problem also occurs in lines 65, 140, 141, 222, 244, 248, 280, 281, 285, 331, 346, 347, 365, 369, 405, 406, 416, 429, 430, 468, 469, 552, 555, and 571.

A: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the spelling, orthography, and grammar in the document to improve the understanding. Also, we have reviewed the citation to understand it better, as you indicated.

 

C: There are also some other fundamental issues. I recommend that the authors carefully check and correct the paper according to the requirements of academic papers.

A: Thank you for the comment. It should be taken into account and improve the overall document.

 

C: Therefore, it is recommended that the authors first focus on correcting the basic format and language issues of the paper to improve its quality and readability.

A: We appreciate your recommendation. The newly reviewed document has been corrected in the basics, and we have tried to improve the quality, addressing all the comments you and other reviewers received.

 

Thanking you in advance for your attention, receive a greeting:

 

Francisco Javier Torrijo Echarri

E-mail address (corresponding author): [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's a nice paper with a novel approach which I found very interesting and thought-provoking. 'Twitter' is not spelled correctly on line 158. It is nicely illustrated, with illustrations that were relevant. 

Author Response

Valencia, May 25th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

First, the authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by the peer-reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

The authors have tried to attend to all your comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript, figures, and tables.

Every comment is answered separately to understand better. Also, in the new text, corrections are displayed to follow them.

 

Comment: It's a nice paper with a novel approach which I found very interesting and thought-provoking. It is nicely illustrated, with illustrations that were relevant.

Answer: The authors thank the reviewer for their time reading and commenting on the manuscript, and appreciate the valuation.

 

C: 'Twitter' is not spelled correctly on line 158.

A: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the spelling, orthography and grammar over all the document to improve the understanding parts.

 

Thanking you in advance for your attention, receive a greeting:

 

Francisco Javier Torrijo Echarri

E-mail address (corresponding author): [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the interesting research performed in the 2022 El Tejado ravine mudflow. I am writing to provide feedback on your paper, which has been reviewed with consideration for its potential to contribute to the academic discourse. It is evident that substantial enhancements are necessary to meet the rigorous standards expected by academic journals. Therefore, I am recommending a major revision of your manuscript, with the aim of elevating the technical depth and clarity of your research. Here are the specific areas that require attention:

 

1. The abstract briefly outlines the data analysis methods used; however, it lacks the necessary detail regarding their application and the reasoning behind their selection. For example, when dealing with mudflow data, what specific statistical models or machine learning techniques were utilized? What is the theoretical basis for these choices? In your revision, please provide a comprehensive account of your analytical approach, supported by relevant literature and theoretical considerations.

 

2. It indicates an analysis of multimedia material to discern changes in flow behavior, yet it omits details on the methodology and validation processes. In the revised manuscript, please include a thorough description of the analytical steps, from data collection to interpretation, and explain how the validity and reliability of the findings were established.

 

3. The reference to a similar event in 1975 is promising, but the abstract does not delve into the comparative aspects sufficiently. To enrich the study, expand on the contrasts and parallels between the two events, addressing factors such as the magnitude of the mudflows, affected areas, and shifts in urban planning and management practices. In your revision, provide a detailed comparative analysis and discuss the implications for disaster prevention and management strategies.

 

4. It identifies urban development and drainage management deficiencies as key factors in the disaster. To bolster this argument, include specific case studies and analyses of urban planning and drainage management practices in your revision. Additionally, consider proposing actionable improvements and policy suggestions to mitigate the risk of future occurrences.

 

5. In the introduction, it appears that the section on related research is somewhat sparse, which makes it challenging to fully appreciate the novelty of your study. To address this, I suggest incorporating a few key references that are directly relevant to your research objectives. For instance, you may consider adding the following references to provide a more comprehensive context:

1.   Luo Y, Liu X, Chen F, et al. Numerical simulation on crack–inclusion interaction for rib-to-deck welded joints in orthotropic steel deck. Metals, 2023, 13(8): 1402. This paper could be cited to provide insights into the numerical simulations that may be relevant to your study on structural interactions.

2.   Luo Y, Liao P, Pan R, Zou J, Xuan ·Z. Effect of bar diameter on bond performance of helically ribbed GFRP bar to UHPC. Journal of Building Engineering. This reference could be useful in discussing the material properties and their influence on structural performance, which may be pertinent to your research.

Additionally, please ensure that the introduction flows logically and that the final paragraph, which describes your research content, is expanded to provide a more detailed overview of your objectives and contributions, please reference https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03710-8, This will help readers understand the significance of your work and how it advances the field.

 

I anticipate the submission of a significantly revised manuscript that not only refines the textual presentation but also deepens and broadens the research's scope. With a thorough revision, I am optimistic that your paper will align with the high publication standards of academic journals.

 

 

Author Response

Valencia, May 25th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

First, the authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by the peer-reviewers for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

The authors have tried to attend to all your comments and suggestions in this revised manuscript, figures, and tables.

Every comment is answered separately to understand better. Also, in the new text, corrections are displayed to follow them.

 

Comment: I appreciate the interesting research performed in the 2022 El Tejado ravine mudflow. I am writing to provide feedback on your paper, which has been reviewed with consideration for its potential to contribute to the academic discourse. It is evident that substantial enhancements are necessary to meet the rigorous standards expected by academic journals. Therefore, I am recommending a major revision of your manuscript, with the aim of elevating the technical depth and clarity of your research.

Answer: The authors thank the reviewer for their time reading and commenting on the manuscript and appreciate the valuation. Also, we appreciate your indications about the reviewing in technical and clarity, so we have tried to improve the document.

 

C: 1. The abstract briefly outlines the data analysis methods used; however, it lacks the necessary detail regarding their application and the reasoning behind their selection. For example, when dealing with mudflow data, what specific statistical models or machine learning techniques were utilized? What is the theoretical basis for these choices? In your revision, please provide a comprehensive account of your analytical approach, supported by relevant literature and theoretical considerations.

A: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the abstract and improved it in that direction.

 

C: 2. It indicates an analysis of multimedia material to discern changes in flow behavior, yet it omits details on the methodology and validation processes. In the revised manuscript, please include a thorough description of the analytical steps, from data collection to interpretation, and explain how the validity and reliability of the findings were established.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. It should be taken into account; however, we think that is explained in the text, but we have tried to improve the methodology and processes.

 

C: 3. The reference to a similar event in 1975 is promising, but the abstract does not delve into the comparative aspects sufficiently. To enrich the study, expand on the contrasts and parallels between the two events, addressing factors such as the magnitude of the mudflows, affected areas, and shifts in urban planning and management practices. In your revision, provide a detailed comparative analysis and discuss the implications for disaster prevention and management strategies.

A: We appreciate your indication. The information about the 1975 event is short and limited only to newspaper news and its redaction and explanation of data. No scientific studies were performed at that time. Therefore, we have tried to improve that important part of the discussion and included new pictures to compare them.

 

C: 4. It identifies urban development and drainage management deficiencies as key factors in the disaster. To bolster this argument, include specific case studies and analyses of urban planning and drainage management practices in your revision. Additionally, consider proposing actionable improvements and policy suggestions to mitigate the risk of future occurrences.

A: We want to thank your comment. We improved the discussion and included a proposal in the conclusions. But that is the line of work of the team right now, starting with the knowledge of the behavior of the hydrogeological features on the El Tejado ravine micro-basin.

 

C: 5. In the introduction, it appears that the section on related research is somewhat sparse, which makes it challenging to fully appreciate the novelty of your study. To address this, I suggest incorporating a few key references that are directly relevant to your research objectives. For instance, you may consider adding the following references to provide a more comprehensive context […].

A: We appreciate your contribution to improving the bibliography. We have considered this in the new release, but structural analysis still needs to be done in that research. Thank you so much, and we keep it in mind for further publications.

 

C: Additionally, please ensure that the introduction flows logically and that the final paragraph, which describes your research content, is expanded to provide a more detailed overview of your objectives and contributions, please reference https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03710-8. This will help readers understand the significance of your work and how it advances the field.

A: The authors want to thank that vital comment, which will improve the quality of the final result. We have restructured and reviewed the entire abstract.

C: I anticipate the submission of a significantly revised manuscript that not only refines the textual presentation but also deepens and broadens the research's scope. With a thorough revision, I am optimistic that your paper will align with the high publication standards of academic journals.

A: We appreciate all your indications, and we hope the new release fulfills the academic standards needed for the journal.

 

 

 

 

Thanking you in advance for your attention, receive a greeting:

 

Francisco Javier Torrijo Echarri

E-mail address (corresponding author): [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's revisions are satisfactory and can be accepted

Author Response

Valencia, June 20th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

The authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by you for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

Sincerely:

Dr. F.J. Torrijo

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, after revision, is now in excellent condition and is ready for acceptance and publication.

Author Response

Valencia, June 20th 2024

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

The authors would like to thank you for your careful review of the article and suggestions. Also, we would like to thank the contributions made by you for their thorough examination of the manuscript and valuable comments, which undoubtedly enhanced the manuscript’s quality.

Sincerely:

Dr. F.J. Torrijo