Total Dissolved Solids Risk Assessment and Optimisation Scheme of Managed Aquifer Recharge Projects in a Karst Area of Northern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
(1) The writing quality of the abstract (Line 11-26) can be improved. Rearrangement of statements is advised. Long statements can be divided and rewritten into shorter statements.
The abstract has been reorganized (Line 11-25).
(2) The current location of Lines 140-144 is inappropriate. These statements could be considered in the discussion as the manner of writing is a discussion of research findings. Otherwise the statement shall be rewritten in ways that it would provide a line of thought that is an introduction to the methodology of the study or a context of a study/project design.
Lines 140-144 have been revised to "4. Results & Discussion".
(3) Same issue for Section 2.4 discusses results; hence, shall be transferred in the Results section along with the figures.
Section 2.4 has been transferred to Section 4. Results & Discussion.
(4) Same issue for Line 224 – 227, the assumed values shall be supported with scientific theories, principles or result/s of past related or highly relevant studies.
“according to the TDS background level (about 1000mg/L) of SNWD Project water” has been added in Lines 331-332.
(5) The author shall include a “study framework” specific to the scope of work described on the manuscript ‘water 2690041’.
Figure 7. Study framework have been added (line 191).
(6) As groundwater (GW) quality is a significant component on the hydrogeological cycle of water, and the focus of this paper (as well) as written on the manuscript title; therefore, other GW quality parameter shall be addressed, too, not only TDS. The TDS is not only the water quality parameter to be addressed if we look at ‘water quality risk assessment’. Otherwise, the authors are advised to change the title of the manuscript.
The title has revised “Total dissolved solids risk assessment and optimization scheme of managed aquifer recharge projects in a karst area of north-ern China”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors;
Although the subject addressed in your study is interesting, the manuscript has poorly organized. My main concerns about the organization of the manuscript is the missing of an important parts of scientific papers, i.e. Discussion. However, i have added further comments to the attached file which can improve the scientific merit of your manuscript.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
(1) Please end this section with some implications of the findings in a broader context. For example, what can others learn from your investigation? How can they apply your findings to their own aquifers/springs?
Discussion have added in Section 4. Results & Discussion.
(2) Please add the name of numerical model.
Abstract add the implications of the findings (line 24-25) and add the name of numerical model (line17-18).
(3) Please add potential evaporation as well.
Potential evaporation have added (line93-94).
(4) Just for Jinan? Rainfall is the main contributor of groundwater recharge worldwide (see, Noori et al., 2023): Decline in Iran's groundwater recharge. Nature Communications 14, 6674 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42411-2
Lines 94-95 has been revised “Atmospheric rainfall is typically the primary source of groundwater.”.
(5) Take care about the permission.(Figure 1, 2, 5)
All of the figures have obtained with permission of authors.
(6) Please add the average groundwater table
Average groundwater table has been added (line 143-144).
(7) They are relevant for groundwater flow and quality simulation. But, it would be better to justify the selection of them by addressing the similar conducted studies such as: PODMT3DMS-Tool: Proper orthogonal decomposition linked to the MT3DMS model for nitrate simulation in aquifers. Hydrogeol J 28, 1125–1142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02114-0
PODMT3DMS has been added (line 204).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached manuscript with Reviewer's comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of English has been improved well compared to the first version. This version has improved a lot in terms of English and quality of writing. However, I believe that the "Abstract" can still be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors;
Thank you for addressing my comments. My suggestion is acceptance.
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
