Risk-Based Design Optimization of Contamination Detection Sensors in Water Distribution Systems: Application of an Improved Whale Optimization Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

The authors designed the article to study the “Risk-based design optimization of

contamination detection sensors in water distribution systems: Application of an improved whale optimization algorithm.

The authors studied to reduce the risk of pollution interring into water distribution systems to optimally locate the contamination detection sensors. The authors tried very well to explain their designed research. The article discrepancies are mentioned below to increase the quality of the article before final publication.

Specific Comments

The article abstracts need to be revised completely. Kindly mention the methodology of the article as well as key results of your study and the novelty of the study.

Please revise the introduction section and add the literature about seasonal variability of water quality. The Iqbal et al., published many article on the seasonal water quality. Kindly take guidelines from their article and cite them properly.

Iqbal, Muhammad Mazhar, et al. "Analysis of Seasonal Variations in Surface Water Quality over Wet and Dry Regions." Water 14.7 (2022): 1058.

Iqbal, Muhammad Mazhar, et al. "Seasonal effect of agricultural pollutants on coastline environment: a case study of the southern estuarine water ecosystem of the boseong county Korea." Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 59.1 (2022).

Rizvi, Filza Fatima, et al. "Assessment of climate extremes from historical data (1960-2013) of Soan River Basin in Pakistan." International Journal of Global Warming 25.1 (2021): 1-37.

Please provide the novelty statement of your study in the last paragraph of the introduction section as well.

There is no heading about the materials and method? Your article methodology is very week and not understandable.

Check the upper case and lower-case issues throughout your article, L31, L346, L375, etc.,

You have mentioned only about the case studies and after that, you have not mentioned about the “Results and Discussion” section. There is no heading about the results of the article.

Moreover, the article discussion is very limited. Please prove your results from the past studies to strengthen your point of view based on your results.   

The conclusion of the article needs to be revised. The key results of the study should be added.

The acknowledgement, funding statement and author contributions are not mentioned in the article. Kindly provide those statements.

Author Response

Authors’ responses to the reviewers’ comments

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer 1:

The authors designed the article to study the “Risk-based design optimization of contamination detection sensors in water distribution systems: Application of an improved whale optimization algorithm. The authors studied to reduce the risk of pollution interring into water distribution systems to optimally locate the contamination detection sensors. The authors tried very well to explain their designed research. The article discrepancies are mentioned below to increase the quality of the article before final publication.

 

We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. We have carefully revised the manuscript accordingly.   

 

Reviewers' comments:

1) The article abstracts need to be revised completely. Kindly mention the methodology of the article as well as key results of your study and the novelty of the study?

Reply

Thank you for this remark. The authors changed and refined the abstract in response to the reviewer's suggestions. Please check the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

2) Please revise the introduction section and add the literature about seasonal variability of water quality. The Iqbal et al., published many article on the seasonal water quality. Kindly take guidelines from their article and cite them properly.

Iqbal, Muhammad Mazhar, et al. "Analysis of Seasonal Variations in Surface Water Quality over Wet and Dry Regions." Water 14.7 (2022): 1058.

Iqbal, Muhammad Mazhar, et al. "Seasonal effect of agricultural pollutants on coastline environment: a case study of the southern estuarine water ecosystem of the boseong county Korea." Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 59.1 (2022).

Rizvi, Filza Fatima, et al. "Assessment of climate extremes from historical data (1960-2013) of Soan River Basin in Pakistan." International Journal of Global Warming 25.1 (2021): 1-37.

Reply

Thank you for this remark. According to the reviewer's recommendation, more literature has been inserted in the updated copy.       

 

Reviewers' comments:

3) Please provide the novelty statement of your study in the last paragraph of the introduction section as well.

Reply

Thank you for this observation. The authors improved the final paragraph of the introductory section and emphasized the novelty assertion. Please review the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

4) There is no heading about the materials and method? Your article methodology is very week and not understandable.

Reply

Thank you. The authors have add more description regarding the proposed methodoly in Secion materials and method Please check the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

5) Check the upper case and lower-case issues throughout your article, L31, L346, L375, etc.,.

Reply

Thank you for this remark. These cases have been examined and necessary corrections has been performed. Please see the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

6) You have mentioned only about the case studies and after that, you have not mentioned about the “Results and Discussion” section. There is no heading about the results of the article.

Reply

Thank you for this comment. The authors want to emphasize that the revised manuscript's structure and organization have been updated.

 

Reviewers' comments:

7) Moreover, the article discussion is very limited. Please prove your results from the past studies to strengthen your point of view based on your results.

Reply

Thank you for this comment. The authors want to state that more discussions have been included in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

8) The conclusion of the article needs to be revised. The key results of the study should be added.

Reply

Thank you for this remark. Done. Please review the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

9) The acknowledgement, funding statement and author contributions are not mentioned in the article. Kindly provide those statements.

Reply

Thank you for this remark as well. Done.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has a good potential for being appreciated and cited, but it requires some improvements and extensions.

The abstract needs some attraction in terms of scientific contribution. It should be rewritten to highlight the research gap in existing research and in the literature. The importance of the proposed integrated approach with respect to the problem statement should have been in focus.

Problem identification needs a clear mapping with the supporting literature.

Regarding the problem definition and the paper's scope, the Introduction section needs to be more explicit and succinct. Better observations should be made on the contribution summary. Additionally, it is not made apparent how the problem and the suggested solution are related. Be sure to highlight the novel idea.

 

Each manuscript should be explicit about the suggested technique, innovation, and experimental findings in the literature review. Highlight more clearly in a few words what general technical shortcomings in previous works were found to have prompted the development of the suggested strategy at the conclusion of related efforts. You can use the following papers as references to more clearly define the context and the various alternatives: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417421012598 and https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2022/6473507/.

 

The conclusion should be improved. Before supporting their conclusion with numerical facts, the writers should emphasize their own work and contributions. The shortcomings of the paper should next be discussed. As a result, the future work of this study can be deduced.

 

 

 

Author Response

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 2:

The paper has a good potential for being appreciated and cited, but it requires some improvements and extensions.

We appreciate you taking the time to offer us your comments and insights related to the paper. We found your feedback very constructive. We tried to be responsive to your concerns. We hope you find these revisions rise to your expectations.   

 

Reviewers' comments:

1) The abstract needs some attraction in terms of scientific contribution. It should be rewritten to highlight the research gap in existing research and in the literature. The importance of the proposed integrated approach with respect to the problem statement should have been in focus.

Reply

Thank you for your comment. The authors have amended the abstract in response to the reviewer's comments; please review the revised paper.

 

Reviewers' comments:

2) Problem identification needs a clear mapping with the supporting literature.

Reply

Thank you for this observation. The introduction portion has been updated, and the problem identification has been strengthened with more literature.

 

Reviewers' comments:

3) Regarding the problem definition and the paper's scope, the Introduction section needs to be more explicit and succinct. Better observations should be made on the contribution summary. Additionally, it is not made apparent how the problem and the suggested solution are related. Be sure to highlight the novel idea.

Reply

Thank you for this remark. The writers agree with the reviewer's advice, thus the novelty and contribution, as well as the introduction part, have been improved. Please check the revised manuscript.  

 

Reviewers' comments:

4) Each manuscript should be explicit about the suggested technique, innovation, and experimental findings in the literature review. Highlight more clearly in a few words what general technical shortcomings in previous works were found to have prompted the development of the suggested strategy at the conclusion of related efforts. You can use the following papers as references to more clearly define the context and the various alternatives:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417421012598

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2022/6473507/.

Reply

Thank you for this suggestion. The authors agree with the reviewer's criticism, and the manuscript structure has been improved as a result. 

Reviewers' comments:

5) The conclusion should be improved. Before supporting their conclusion with numerical facts, the writers should emphasize their own work and contributions. The shortcomings of the paper should next be discussed. As a result, the future work of this study can be deduced.

 

Reply

Thank for your suggestion. The concluding part has been improved as a result. Please review the updated manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The innovation of this paper lies in the combination of two heuristic algorithms, effectively leveraging the strengths of both optimization algorithms and improving computational performance. I’m generally satisfied with the study. Nevertheless, the author still needs to clarify some issues before the work can be considered for publication.

1. The incomplete and incorrectly formatted layout is shown in Figure 1.

2. The section on Whale Optimization Algorithm (lines 198 - 288). This is essentially a general description that can be found elsewhere. As such the section has no unique connection to the current problem (i.e., this is a general description of WOA that can be applied to other problems in which optimization is required). Providing a very short description on what WOA is, followed by a reference is much better.

3. Some excellent algorithms such as genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, and simulated annealing were not compared with the proposed method in this study. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed method is superior to common optimization algorithms in terms of computational efficiency, accuracy, and robustness.

4. Can the proposed method for optimizing the placement of monitoring points be practically applied? What specific pollutants are mentioned in the paper? Are there sensors available to directly monitor or identify these pollutants? As far as I know, water quality sensors are only used to measure common water quality parameters such as residual chlorine, turbidity, and COD. Currently, there are no sensors available specifically for directly monitoring toxic pollutants in the water distribution network.

Author Response

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviewer 3:

 

The innovation of this paper lies in the combination of two heuristic algorithms, effectively leveraging the strengths of both optimization algorithms and improving computational performance. I’m generally satisfied with the study. Nevertheless, the author still needs to clarify some issues before the work can be considered for publication.

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of our manuscript. We hope that our revision has improved the paper to a level of your satisfaction. Please, find below the detailed answer to the raised points.

 

Reviewers' comments:

1) The incomplete and incorrectly formatted layout is shown in Figure 1.

Reply

Thank you for this remark. This mistake has been corrected in the revised manuscript. 

 

Reviewers' comments:

2) The section on Whale Optimization Algorithm (lines 198 - 288). This is essentially a general description that can be found elsewhere. As such the section has no unique connection to the current problem (i.e., this is a general description of WOA that can be applied to other problems in which optimization is required). Providing a very short description on what WOA is, followed by a reference is much better.

Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. The section has been updated in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

3) Some excellent algorithms such as genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, and simulated annealing were not compared with the proposed method in this study. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed method is superior to common optimization algorithms in terms of computational efficiency, accuracy, and robustness.

Reply

Thank you for your kind point of view. The authors include further comparative results to demonstrate the efficacy of the suggested approach. Please review the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewers' comments:

4) Can the proposed method for optimizing the placement of monitoring points be practically applied? What specific pollutants are mentioned in the paper? Are there sensors available to directly monitor or identify these pollutants? As far as I know, water quality sensors are only used to measure common water quality parameters such as residual chlorine, turbidity, and COD. Currently, there are no sensors available specifically for directly monitoring toxic pollutants in the water distribution network.

Reply

Thank you for your kind point of view. In the real world, sensors function by measuring deviations from the allowed concentration levels. For instance, in water networks, chlorine concentration is typically expected to fall within the range of 0.2 to 0.8. If a pollutant enters the water and triggers a reaction, the concentration of chlorine is likely to increase. Quality sensors installed in the network are designed to detect such changes and subsequently issue a warning in response to the increased pollutant concentration in the water.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my concerns; therefore, I believe the paper can be accepted as is.