Analyzing the Vertical Recharge Mechanism of Groundwater Using Ion Characteristics and Water Quality Indexes in Lake Hulun

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please read attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated whether there was a vertical recharge of groundwater into the lake and analyzed the vertical recharge mechanism between groundwater and lake water in the Lake Hulun basin. The results indicated that the spring was related to the NNE fault on the western shore of Lake Hulun. Also, there were obvious differences in ice thickness, ion characteristics, and water quality characteristics between the spring and lake sites. In general, this work was well presented. Before it can be accepted in this journal, some discussions need to be further improved and completed. Here are the specific comments:

 

Comment 1: The abstract was too long and redundant, please revise it.

Comment 2: There should be Spaces between the value and the unit, such as “0.13mg/L and 1.30mg/L”.

Comment 3: The images were too blurry. Please provide high-quality images.

 

Comment 4: The last sentence of the conclusion part can be removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of this work was quite good.

 

Author Response

Please read attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Analyzing the vertical recharge mechanism of groundwater using ion characteristics and water quality indexes in Lake Hulun”

After studying the paper, I came to the conclusion that it is not suitable for publication in its present form. Yet, the paper has merits and encourages the authors to work on the following revisions:

First and foremost, the writing style and writing grammar of the paper is not appropriate and technical. It requires fundamental revision.

The Abstract of the paper has been written in an informative way, such as a report.

“In order to investigate whether there is vertical recharge of groundwater into the lake and the vertical recharge mechanism between groundwater and lake water in the Lake Hulun basin, this study located the position of the lake's bottom source through the area of abnormal ice thickness during the frozen period. “ the Abstract should not be started with the Question of the study. A short introduction of the nature of the problem is needed.

More information on the analysis of the gathered data should be given in terms of statistical analysis and discussion.

“The spring water is firstly supplied by the deep confined aquifer to the loose sediment phreatic aquifer under the lake through the fault zone, and then interacts with the lake water through the phreatic aquifer.” How did the authors reach this point? More evidence for their claim is needed.

Does not Table 1 need a reference?

“The difference of TDS content between the bottom spring point and the surrounding lake water is small, and the difference value is only 12% of the lake water. The contents of HCO3-, Cl-, SO42-, Na+, K+, Mg2+ and Ca2+ ions in the springs at the bottom of the lake were all less than 50% of those in the lake water, indicating that there were a large number of other ions in the springs at the bottom of the lake compared with the lake water, and there were great differences between the springs at the bottom of the lake and the surrounding lake water. While the ion concentration of the bottom spring water is different from that of the lake water, the ion concentration has a similar trend[39].” I did not understand the writing of this paragraph, Are these the results of this study or [39] study? If there are no outcomes for this study, then why have the authors written them in this section.

The Discussion section and even the analysis of the results are weak. The authors need to solidify these parts.

Fig.1 should have a more detailed caption.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs fundamental revision.

Author Response

Please read attached PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to my concerns properly. It can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please refer to the PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf