Assessment and Prediction of the Water Quality Index for the Groundwater of the Ghiss-Nekkor (Al Hoceima, Northeastern Morocco)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

General Comments-

§ Thanks for providing the opportunity to review the article entitled "Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)." However, the manuscript is not well organized/ poorly designed and has many weaknesses. Furthermore, the authors need to describe the novelty of their work clearly.

§  The objective of the study does not coincide with the study plan and execution of the research. The study lacks proper interpretations of obtained results. Also, I have many concerns regarding the methodology and presentation of data in the manuscript. However, this manuscript should be revised substantially to consider for publication in Sustainability.

 Specific Comments-

§  Line 42: “Throughout 2019” should be specific. As we know, ionic constituents in groundwater may vary significantly among the seasons of the year.

§  Lines 46-47: “The EC, WQI……… poor groundwater quality”. Water EC and TDS are directly related to each other. Thus, why is TDS not involved with poor groundwater quality?

§  Line 48: “……..due to domestic and agricultural waste inputs.” There is no result found in the manuscript by which authors can draw such conclusions.

§  Lines 102, 106-117 & 118-121: Need references.

§  Figure 2: No need to add this map, only the description is ok with proper citations.

§  Sampling and analysis of groundwater:

a)   As samples were collected from approx. 100 km² area and different types of wells (domestic, irrigation & industrial), thus, information about the depth of groundwater aquifers is crucial, which is ignored in this study.

b)   As I have mentioned earlier, be specific about the sampling time & season.

c)   Line 131: No. of parameters, as mentioned is 12, but in Table 1, it is 13.

d)   The pH is measured in situ, but what about the EC & TDS?

e)   Methodologies used for the measurement of different anions and cations are missing. Moreover, how did the authors maintain the analytical quality during the experiment?

f)    The authors should calculate the Ionic Balance Error, which is important for this type of study.

g)   According to the geology (as stated in 2.2) of the area and obtained result, there is a probability of seawater intrusion (lines- 282-83 & 353), thus, why is salinity measurement ignored in this study? Furthermore, as the pH of most of the groundwaters was >7.0, thus, determination of carbonate was also important. Similarly, hardness is an important parameter to measure water quality. The Authors also ignored these parameters; why?

§  Water quality index method:

a)    The authors considered nine parameters (among 13, as shown in Table 1) to generate WQI (lines 151-52), but weightage was taken for 11, why? Furthermore, why did they ignore the rest?

b)    Equation 2: What is Ci & Si?

c)     Table 2: shows the total no. of samples 73, but the authors collected 50 as mentioned in 2.3.

d)    Lines 166-67: There is no Si in equation 3.

§  Why is Br not included in Figure 3?

§  Lines 186-190: Where did the authors use D? What is E?

§  Lines 201-202: Be specific, about which are applicable to your study area.

§  Lines 203-204: How is this statement similar to the geology of the present study area? Because, among the 3 citations, 2 are in different regions and countries.

§  Figure 4 and Table 3 convey the same messages. I think the data presented in Table 3 may be added as supplementary material.

§  The objective of the study as stated in lines 92-94 is to assess the WQI for drinking usages, but section 3.2 describes the results of water quality for irrigation using other parameters (SAR & %Na). Furthermore, the authors ignored the calculation of permeability, hardness, and RSC, which are also important to judge irrigation water quality. However, the calculation of WQI for irrigation purposes will be more interesting for the readers, as they will get an opportunity to compare results for both usages. However, the authors may go through the following link of the article & checked this once again thoughtfully- https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100005

§  Regarding Fig. 5: It would be better to combine both a & b in one figure using the US salinity diagram as described by Richards (1968).

§  Figure 6 and Table 4 convey the same messages, as PCA also provides correlation information. Thus, correlation coefficient data presented in Table 4 may be added as supplementary material.

§  Lines 300-302: How?? Discuss in detail.

§  Lines 313-315: Why organic matter and chemical fertilizer?? Discuss in detail.

§  Regarding Fig. 7: How did the authors get data on CO₃?

§  Lines 321-324: This study ignored the measurement of total hardness. Thus, how did the authors find that total hardness has increased, and it is responsible to make the groundwater unsuitable for drinking?

§  Conclusions: Lines 345 & 353: The authors did not measure salinity in this study but stated that there was significant variation in salinity, and it is due to seawater intrusion, how is it possible??

§  Detailed data for all physicochemical parameters and other results should be added as supplementary materials; thus, one can check if desired.

Thus, the paper is not suitable for publication in the current format.

 

Author Response

Responses to comments - Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving our manuscript.

The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation hasmarked and revisedcontent is shown in in blue).

 

OpenReview( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments-

• Thanks for providing the opportunity to review the article entitled "Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)." However, the manuscript is not well organized/ poorly designed and has many weaknesses. Furthermore, the authors need to describe the novelty of their work clearly.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. The structure of this paper is organized as described below. Section 2 provides a description of the study area, data, and methodology used in this study. Section 3 gives the results and discussion, and the final section contains the conclusion part. Novelty is done.

“The novelty of this investigation project is the application and test of a WQI approach, statistical analysis with multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to assess the groundwater quality of the Ghiss Nekkor plain”.

• The objective of the study does not coincide with the study plan and execution of the research. The study lacks proper interpretations of obtained results. Also, I have many concerns regarding the methodology and presentation of data in the manuscript. However, this manuscript should be revised substantially to consider for publication in Sustainability.

Response2: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

“The principal objective of this paper is to identify and evaluate the suitability of groundwater in the Ghiss Nekkor plain potentially for drinking and irrigation by calculating the WQI in 50 wells with specific importance weights and to validate the relevance of the indices by comparing them with other approaches to quality assessment. Additionally, the purpose of this work is to identify areas with sufficient water quality for irrigation and drinking for efficient management of groundwater supplies in the survey area”.

 Specific Comments-

• Line 42: “Throughout 2019” should be specific. As we know, ionic constituents in groundwater may vary significantly among the seasons of the year.

Response 1: Thank you very much for you comment, done, the samples are required and analyzed for the month of May 2019.

• Lines 46-47: “The EC, WQI……… poor groundwater quality”. Water EC and TDS are directly related to each other. Thus, why is TDS not involved with poor groundwater quality?

Response 2: Thank you very much for you comment, indeed, it is added in the above section. TDS ranges from 1130 to 5035 mg/L as described in Table 1, please refer to the following paragraph :

“These high values are generally not allowed for human consumption (WHO, 2011) and with TDS >2000 mg/L values are deleterious to many crops and plants (Bauder et al., 2005)”

• Line 48: “……..due to domestic and agricultural waste inputs.” There is no result found in the manuscript by which authors can draw such conclusions.

Response 3: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• Lines 102, 106-117 & 118-121: Need references.

Response4: Thank you very much for you comment, done

• Figure 2: No need to add this map, only the description is ok with proper citations.

Response 5: Thank you very much for you comment, done. “May 2019”

• Sampling and analysis of groundwater:

1. a)As samples were collected from approx. 100 km2 area and different types of wells (domestic, irrigation & industrial), thus, information about the depth of groundwater aquifers is crucial, which is ignored in this study.

Response a: Thank you very much for you comment, done

1. b)As I have mentioned earlier, be specific about the sampling time & season.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

13. c)Line 131: No. of parameters, as mentioned is 12, but in Table 1, it is 13.

Response c: Thank you very much for you comment, done, noted that it had 13 parameters.

1. d)The pH is measured in situ, but what about the EC & TDS?

Response d: Thank you very much for you comment, done, thus the EC & TDS parameters are also measured in situ.

1. e)Methodologies used for the measurement of different anions and cations are missing. Moreover, how did the authors maintain the analytical quality during the experiment?

Response e: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

“The Measurements of cations ( Mg2+, Ca2+, Na+ and K+,), and anions (HCO3 -, Cl-, SO4 2-, NO3 and -Br-) in the sampled waters were collected and analyzed for analysis using the HACH LANGE DR 1900 spectrophotometer Shimadzu UV-1800 and Flame Photometer CL 361 at the laboratory LSA-GE2 of ENSA Al Hoceima, with the exception of the bromide concentrations, which were analyzed by the technical and scientific services of the University of Barcelona (El yousfi, 2022).”

1. f)The authors should calculate the Ionic Balance Error, which is important for this type of study.

Response f: Thank you very much for you comment, done, it is calculated in table 3.

2. g)According to the geology (as stated in 2.2) of the area and obtained result, there is a probability of seawater intrusion (lines- 282-83 & 353), thus, why is salinity measurement ignored in this study? Furthermore, as the pH of most of the groundwaters was >7.0, thus, determination of carbonate was also important. Similarly, hardness is an important parameter to measure water quality. The Authors also ignored these parameters; why?

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done. The salinity based on TDS and EC, while in the plain of Ghiss Nekkor the salinity is over 2 g/l ; For all samples the values of CO32- at values of 0, and this since the pH < 8.3; thus please find the spatial distribution maps of major elements in the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer in Figure 4.

• Water quality index method:

1. a)The authors considered nine parameters (among 13, as shown in Table 1) to generate WQI (lines 151-52), but weightage was taken for 11, why? Furthermore, why did they ignore the rest?

Response a: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

1. b)    Equation 2: What is Ci & Si?

Response b:Thank you very much for you comment, done, Please consult section 2-4 for a more detailed description.

2. c)Table 2: shows the total no. of samples 73, but the authors collected 50 as mentioned in 2.3.

Response c:Thank you very much for you comment, line 2 has been corrected, please see table 2, the number is still 50 samples and therefore in the range (100-200) the number of samples is 36 instead of 59.

3. d)Lines 166-67: There is no Si in equation 3.

Response d: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

“SIi is the drinking water standard limit given by guidelines of the WHO for each chemical parameter in milligrams per liter”.

• Why is Br not included in Figure 3?

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, please check figure 3, it's done.

• Lines 186-190: Where did the authors use D? What is E? Equation 5

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done, D is Dataset of calculated parameters of WQI {xi,yi}, thus we just keep {xi,yi}, and for E is named cost function or objective function.

• Lines 201-202: Be specific, about which are applicable to your study area.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done

• Lines 203-204: How is this statement similar to the geology of the present study area? Because, among the 3 citations, 2 are in different regions and countries.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done

• Figure 4 and Table 3 convey the same messages. I think the data presented in Table 3 may be added as supplementary material.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• The objective of the study as stated in lines 92-94 is to assess the WQI for drinking usages, but section 3.2 describes the results of water quality for irrigation using other parameters (SAR & %Na). Furthermore, the authors ignored the calculation of permeability, hardness, and RSC, which are also important to judge irrigation water quality. However, the calculation of WQI for irrigation purposes will be more interesting for the readers, as they will get an opportunity to compare results for both usages. However, the authors may go through the following link of the article & checked this once again thoughtfully- https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100005.

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done, Please find the results for the RSC and SAR values in Table 3 (Supplementary material), and Figure 4 represents the spatial distribution of the total hardness of the samples in the current study. as well as to calculate the values of RSC and PI the concentrations of the physicochemical analyses are transformed from mg/L to meq/L.

• Regarding Fig. 5: It would be better to combine both a & b in one figure using the US salinity diagram as described by Richards (1968).

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done, please check Figure 5 and 6.

• Figure 6 and Table 4 convey the same messages, as PCA also provides correlation information. Thus, correlation coefficient data presented in Table 4 may be added as supplementary material.

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• Lines 300-302: How?? Discuss in detail.

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• Lines 313-315: Why organic matter and chemical fertilizer?? Discuss in detail.

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• Regarding Fig. 7: How did the authors get data on CO3?

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, Thank you very much for your comment, please refer to Table 3 which includes the pH measurement of all the wells in the Ghiss Nekkor plain, therefore the value of CO32- is equal to 0 in our study and this since we no more have a pH that exceeds 8.3.

• Lines 321-324: This study ignored the measurement of total hardness. Thus, how did the authors find that total hardness has increased, and it is responsible to make the groundwater unsuitable for drinking?

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done.

• Conclusions: Lines 345 & 353: The authors did not measure salinity in this study but stated that there was significant variation in salinity, and it is due to seawater intrusion, how is it possible??

Response:Thank you very much for you comment, done, salinity values in the study area are calculated, please refer Table 3, therefore, the salinity of the samples in the Ghiss Nekkor plain is probably attributed to seawater intrusion (El Yousfi 2022).

• Detailed data for all physicochemical parameters and other results should be added as supplementary materials; thus, one can check if desired.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done, please check Table 3 and Table 4.

Thus, the paper is not suitable for publication in the current format.

Response: Thank you very much for you comment, done; Please find attached the revised version of the manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript, sustainability-2002076-peer-review-v1- entitled " Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)," is well written and has potential, but it should be more organized. This research employed statistical analysis and Multilayer perceptron (MLP) ap- proaches for predicting groundwater quality in the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer northeast of Al Hoceima, Morocco.

In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences. The study seems to be well designed. The methodology and results are technically sound. Discussions on the scientific and practical values of the study, the limitations of proposed models, and future work are meaningful. I recommend accepting this manuscript after revision. The main concerns are as follows:

1)     More literature review about the other methods is needed. The manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literature about contemporary real-life case studies of sustainability and/or uncertainty, such as the followings.

·       Sadeghfam, S., Bagheri, A., Razzagh, S., Nadiri, A. A., Vadiati, M., Senapathi, V., & Sekar, S. (2022). Hydrochemical analysis of seawater intrusion by graphical techniques in coastal aquifers to delineate vulnerable areas. In Groundwater Contamination in Coastal Aquifers (pp. 91-104). Elsevier.

·       Vadiati, M., Rajabi Yami, Z., Eskandari, E., Nakhaei, M., & Kisi, O. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence models for prediction of groundwater level fluctuations: Case study (Tehran-Karaj alluvial aquifer). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(9), 1-21.

2)     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight significant difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them more straightforwardly in the abstract and introduction.

3)     Providing a comprehensive flowchart is highly recommended by researchers, so please add a flowchart representing the methodology in the paper.

4)     the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.

5)     It is important to give a better description of the samples and the sampling protocol since we are trying to understand the data variability. What are the advantages of adopting these parameters over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.

6)     The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.

7)     It seems that conclusions are observations only, and the manuscript needs thorough checking for explanations given for results. The authors should interpret more precisely the results argument.

Author Response

Responses to comments - Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving our manuscript. The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation hasmarked and revisedcontent is shown in in blue).

 

Open Review( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript, sustainability-2002076-peer-review-v1- entitled " Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)," is well written and has potential, but it should be more organized. This research employed statistical analysis and Multilayer perceptron (MLP) approaches for predicting groundwater quality in the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer northeast of Al Hoceima, Morocco.

In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences. The study seems to be well designed. The methodology and results are technically sound. Discussions on the scientific and practical values of the study, the limitations of proposed models, and future work are meaningful. I recommend accepting this manuscript after revision. The main concerns are as follows:

1)     More literature review about the other methods is needed. The manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literature about contemporary real-life case studies of sustainability and/or uncertainty, such as the followings.

• Sadeghfam, S., Bagheri, A., Razzagh, S., Nadiri, A. A., Vadiati, M., Senapathi, V., &Sekar, S. (2022). Hydrochemical analysis of seawater intrusion by graphical techniques in coastal aquifers to delineate vulnerable areas. In Groundwater Contamination in Coastal Aquifers (pp. 91-104). Elsevier.
• Vadiati, M., RajabiYami, Z., Eskandari, E., Nakhaei, M., & Kisi, O. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence models for prediction of groundwater level fluctuations: Case study (Tehran-Karaj alluvial aquifer). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(9), 1-21.

Response 1: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

2)     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight significant difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them more straightforwardly in the abstract and introduction.

Response 2: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

3)     Providing a comprehensive flowchart is highly recommended by researchers, so please add a flowchart representing the methodology in the paper.

Response 3: Thank you very much for you comment, done, please check figure 2.

4)    The Ghiss Nekkor aquifer is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.

Response 4: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

“The advantages of this study is to make an application of statistical and descriptive analysis on physico-chemical data for management and control of water quality at the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer, and to visualize and analyze the existing correlations between the different variables through their structuring and their orientations, to identify the main factors responsible for the quality of water for the sampling season (Sadeghfam, S2022).”

5)     It is important to give a better description of the samples and the sampling protocol since we are trying to understand the data variability. What are the advantages of adopting these parameters over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.

Response 5: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

“The samples of water in this study were taken  in clean polyethylene bottles. At each sampling time, the bottles were rinsed thoroughly two to three times with the groundwater to be sampled and water samples were collected after pumping for 10 min. At the time of sampling, there are some in situ measures that included temperature, electrical conductivity (EC), TDS, and pH, which were measured using the multiparameter device (HANA HI 98194) which has an accuracy of ±0.01 units for pH and ±1% (or ±1 μS/cm) for electrical conductivity (El yousfi, 2022).  The Measurements of cations ( Mg2+, Ca2+, Na+ and K+,), and anions (HCO3 -, Cl-, SO4 2-, NO3 and -Br-) in the sampled waters were collected and analyzed for analysis using the HACH LANGE DR 1900 spectrophotometer Shimadzu UV-1800 and Flame Photometer CL 361 at the laboratory LSA-GE2 of ENSA Al Hoceima, with the exception of the bromide concentrations, which were analyzed by the technical and scientific services of the University of Barcelona (El yousfi, 2022).”

6)     The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.

Response 6: Thank you very much for you comment, done.

7)     It seems that conclusions are observations only, and the manuscript needs thorough checking for explanations given for results. The authors should interpret more precisely the results argument.

Response 7: Thank you very much for you comment, done, check the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscripts structured well, however the technicality of the paper can be improved by more fact based studies. The interpretation of the figures seems one directional which needs more supportive information. The conclusions drawn are fairly insufficient and can be improved.

Author Response

Responses to comments–Reviewer3

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving ourmanuscript.The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation hasmarked and revisedcontent is shown in in blue).

 

Open Review( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscripts structured well, however the technicality of the paper can be improved by more fact based studies. The interpretation of the figures seems one directional which needs more supportive information. The conclusions drawn are fairly insufficient and can be improved.

Response: thank you very much for you comment, done. Thank you very much, therefore please consult the improved version

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments-

§  Thanks for providing the opportunity to re-review the article entitled "Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)." However, the manuscript should be checked by a professional proofreader for the improvement of the English language. Furthermore, still there are many flaws regarding the methodology and presentation of data in the manuscript that requires the authors’ attention.

Specific Comments-

§  Line 48: “due to domestic and agricultural waste inputs.” This statement contradicts the conclusion of the study.

§  Lines 118-120: No need.

§  Lines 128-29 & 148-151: Need references.

§  Figure 2: Replaced with a legible one.

§  Measurement procedures of different anions and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, NO₃, HCO₃, Cl, Br, and SO₄) should be written in detail in the methodology section. Furthermore, the authors need to state, how did they maintain the analytical quality during the experiment?

§  Figure 3: Need to be revised by incorporating other elements (viz. Na, K, NO₃, Cl, Br, and SO₄). Moreover, it will be better to mention the name of the element inside the figure (e.g., TDS instead of d).

§  Captions of tables and figures should be revised as self-explanatory one. Furthermore, tables and figures numbers in the caption and in the text should coincide with each other.

§  Lines 239: “Given a dataset D={??,??} where xi = input vector of i^th example.” But equation 5 doesn’t contain D & xi. Write in detail for clarification. What is E? Please, add all of those in the revised article for clarification.

§  Lines 254-257: The authors are requested to go through the comments made by the reviewer. I did not find any change in these lines concerning the reviewer’s comments.

§  Lines 260-261: Need to revise according to the contents of the article. Actually, there is no Table found for WQI, and figure 4 contains other things than WQI.

§  One objective of the study as stated in lines 97-99 is to assess the WQI for drinking usages, but section 3.2 describes the results of water quality for irrigation, thus the sub-title should be changed to “Groundwater quality for irrigation. And the addition of another subheading entitled “3.3 Groundwater quality for drinking” will be interesting to fulfill the objective. Furthermore, such a comment is made by the reviewer for the previous version, which remains unaddressed.

§  Lines 376-379: Need to explain in detail. Why did the authors assume that household and agricultural activities are associated with mineralization?? Why not industrial activities??

§  Lines 402-404: The addition of total hardness data is crucial to the readers in the context of this statement, which can easily calculate by the study result. Although the authors stated in their response “Figure 4 represents the spatial distribution of the total hardness of the samples in the current study”, unfortunately, I did not find any correction regarding this statement both in methodology and results.

The manuscript requires major revision for consideration for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Responses to comments - Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving our manuscript.

The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation hasmarked in blue, and revisedcontent is shown in red).

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Are all the cited references relevant to the research? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) Is the article adequately referenced? ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? (x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments-

• Thanks for providing the opportunity to re-review the article entitled "Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)." However, the manuscript should be checked by a professional proofreader for the improvement of the English language. Furthermore, still there are many flaws regarding the methodology and presentation of data in the manuscript that requires the authors’ attention.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

Specific Comments-

• Line 48: “due to domestic and agricultural waste inputs.” This statement contradicts the conclusion of the study.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

“Due to seawater intrusion, overexploitation and harsh weather conditions”

• Lines 118-120: No need.

Response 2 : Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

• Lines 128-29 & 148-151: Need references.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

• “Because of the variable precipitation and high potential evapotranspiration in the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer's climate, even if there is a slight surplus (Chafouq, 2018), it is inadequate to make up for the hydric shortage”.

 

• “The current study includes a diversity of alluvial geological formations consisting mainly of recent and present middle quaternary age (sands, gravels, silts, clays, and pebbles) (Kouz, 2018), supported by a substratum of primary quartzites, blue schistose marls, and silts of middle and ancient quaternary age (Salhi, 2008).”.
• Figure 2: Replaced with a legible one.

Response 4 : Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

• Measurement procedures of different anions and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, NO3, HCO3, Cl, Br, and SO4) should be written in detail in the methodology section. Furthermore, the authors need to state, how did they maintain the analytical quality during the experiment?

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comment. Done. Please check section 2.4 Sampling and analysis protocole of groundwater.

“All cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+), and anions (NO3-, Cl-, SO4 2-, HCO3- and Br-) measurements of the sampling waters were performed using the HACH LANGE DR 1900 spectrophotometer Shimadzu UV-1800 and Flame Photometer CL 361 at the laboratory LSA-GE2 of ENSA Al Hoceima, with the exception of the bromide concentrations, which were analyzed by the technical and scientific services of the University of Barcelona”.

• Figure 3: Need to be revised by incorporating other elements (viz. Na, K, NO3, Cl, Br, and SO4). Moreover, it will be better to mention the name of the element inside the figure (e.g., TDS instead of d).

Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. Done, it is modified in figure 3.

• Captions of tables and figures should be revised as self-explanatory one. Furthermore, tables and figures numbers in the caption and in the text should coincide with each other.

Response 7 : Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

• Lines 239: “Given a dataset D={??,??} where xi = input vector of ith example.” But equation 5 doesn’t contain D & xi. Write in detail for clarification. What is E? Please, add all of those in the revised article for clarification.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your comment, Done.

“Given a dataset where   = input vector of the ith example;   =output vector the ith example, and N is the number of observations. The MLP model moves first the input data from the input layer via the hidden layer to the output layer. Then, the error is calculated and returned to the input layer. This strategy is repeated by adjusting the parameters of the model (weights and bias) by a learning algorithm until the Mean Squared Error (MSE)reaches an acceptable level. MSE is defined by:

               (5)

where  is the estimated output by the MLP model. More details about the MLP model can be found in [46,47]”

• Lines 254-257: The authors are requested to go through the comments made by the reviewer. I did not find any change in these lines concerning the reviewer’s comments.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

“It could be due to ion discharge, coastal zone development, seawater intrusion, human waste, and sewage from homes and septic tanks, among other things (Table 2) [48–51]. This process is also associated with rock salt since gypsum-containing rock formations are effectively infiltrated and resolved [52–54]”.

• Lines 260-261: Need to revise according to the contents of the article. Actually, there is no Table found for WQI, and figure 4 contains other things than WQI.

Response 10 : Thank you very much for your comment. Done. The WQI table is mentioned in the supplementary material.

• One objective of the study as stated in lines 97-99 is to assess the WQI for drinking usages, but section 3.2 describes the results of water quality for irrigation, thus the sub-title should be changed to “Groundwater quality for irrigation. And the addition of another subheading entitled “3.3 Groundwater quality for drinking” will be interesting to fulfill the objective. Furthermore, such a comment is made by the reviewer for the previous version, which remains unaddressed.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. Done in the section 3.3.

• Lines 376-379: Need to explain in detail. Why did the authors assume that household and agricultural activities are associated with mineralization?? Why not industrial activities??

Response 12 : Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

“Therefore, it can be associated with pollution from urban and industrial activities (Salhi, 2008)”.

• Lines 402-404: The addition of total hardness data is crucial to the readers in the context of this statement, which can easily calculate by the study result. Although the authors stated in their response “Figure 4 represents the spatial distribution of the total hardness of the samples in the current study”, unfortunately, I did not find any correction regarding this statement both in methodology and results.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your comment. Done. Figure 3 which represents the spatial distribution of the several physicochemical parameters (including the results of the total hardness), is modified in the current version.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept the manuscript in its present form.

Author Response

Responses to comments - Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving our manuscript.

The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation has marked in blue, and revised content is shown in red).

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept the manuscript in its present form.

Thanks

We thank you very much for reviewing and accepting our manuscript entitled "Evaluation and prediction of the water quality index of the Ghiss Nekkor aquifer (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)". The comments made are all valuable and very useful for the revision and improvement of our article, as well as the importance of guidance for our research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Dr. Yani Li

Good morning. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-review (v-3) the article entitled "Assessment and prediction of the water quality index for the groundwater of the Ghiss Nekkor (Al Hoceima, North East Morocco)." However, still there are many weaknesses regarding the methodology and presentation of data in the manuscript that requires the authors’ attention.

Major Comments-

§  Need to check plagiarism. There are some statements found that are copied (cent percent) from another published article (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100818). Furthermore, Figs. 3 & 9 are also doubtful and might be similar to the mentioned published article.

§  Measurement of WQI: According to study objectives, WQI should be calculated both for irrigation and drinking water separately. Standard values with proper citation(s), and calculated unit weights should be presented in a separate Table. Furthermore, detailed WQI values for all samples along with descriptions need to be added as another supplementary Table. Once again, I would like to request the authors to go through the following article for clarity- https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100005

Specific Comments-

§  Lines 162-164: Be specific about the instrument and its purpose. The authors used three instruments (viz. Hach Lange DR1900 Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu UV-1800 Spectrophotometer, and Flame Photometer CL 361), but which one is used to measure which parameters that need to be clarified. What methods were followed to develop colour? How was the analytical accuracy? What types of chemicals were used to develop colour? How did the authors measure magnesium (Mg) in water samples?? All of these questions should be addressed with proper citations.

§  Lines 162 & 167: Inappropriate citation (perhaps self) that needs to be addressed.

§  The authors are requested to provide all raw data as supplementary material, which still remains unaddressed. Furthermore, the sequence of tables in the text should be maintained separately. Similarly, the sequence of tables in the supplementary file also needs to maintain individually (viz. Suppl. Table 1, Suppl. Table 2 etc.).

§  Resolution of figure 3 is very poor, which should be replaced with a legible one.

§  Captions of tables and figures should be revised as self-explanatory, which still remains unaddressed.

§  Detailed data for all samples should be added as a supplementary table for clarity of the article that is presented in Table 1.

§  Lines 239: “Given a dataset = input vector of i^th example; = output vector…….” ?? still unaddressed.

§  Lines 261-262: As I mentioned earlier, the sequence of tables in the text should be maintained separately and need to revise accordingly. Supplementary tables should be cited accordingly.

§  Groundwater quality for irrigation & drinking (sub-heads 3.2 & 3.3): Please see the major comments regarding WQI and calculate those data, and present them in these sub-sections accordingly.

§  Line 341: Is it figure 9?

§  Lines 343-445: Unaddressed (The addition of total hardness data is crucial to the readers in the context of this statement, which can easily calculate by the study result. Although the authors stated in their response “Figure 3 represents the spatial distribution of the total hardness of the samples in the current study”, unfortunately, I did not find any correction regarding this statement both in methodology and results).

Thus, the manuscript requires major revision for consideration for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Responses to comments - Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our paper submitted to Sustainability (Manuscript ID:  sustainability-2002076), which were crucial in improving our manuscript.

The manuscript has been extensively revised based on each point of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions (Please see point-to-point responses below, explanation hasmarked in blue, and revisedcontent is shown in red).

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

 

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

Major Comments-

• Need to check plagiarism. There are some statements found that are copied (cent percent) from another published article (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100818). Furthermore, Figs. 3 & 9 are also doubtful and might be similar to the mentioned published article.

Response 1: Many thanks for your comment. Done

Figures 3 and 9 were prepared for the 50 samples collected for the May 2019 period in the study area, while the others were made for the 73 collected samples presented in our last paper (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100818) conducted in May 2018 and May 2019.

• Measurement of WQI: According to study objectives, WQI should be calculated both for irrigation and drinking water separately. Standard values with proper citation(s), and calculated unit weights should be presented in a separate Table. Furthermore, detailed WQI values for all samples along with descriptions need to be added as another supplementary Table. Once again, I would like to request the authors to go through the following article for clarity- https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100005

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. Done in table 2

Specific Comments-

• Lines 162-164: Be specific about the instrument and its purpose. The authors used three instruments (viz. Hach Lange DR1900 Spectrophotometer, Shimadzu UV-1800 Spectrophotometer, and Flame Photometer CL 361), but which one is used to measure which parameters that need to be clarified. What methods were followed to develop colour? How was the analytical accuracy? What types of chemicals were used to develop colour? How did the authors measure magnesium (Mg) in water samples?? All of these questions should be addressed with proper citations.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

“For analysis of major cations and anions, groundwater was filtered in the field using a syringe and 0.45 lm membrane filters. Sampling was conducted according to Rodier's protocol. Potassium K+ and Sodium Na+ were measured with a CL 361 flame photometer at the LSA-GE2 laboratory of ENSA Al Hoceima.  Nitrate NO3- was measured with a HACH LANGE DR 1900 and Sulfate SO42- was measured with a Shimadzu UV-1800 spectrophotometer. Chloride Cl- was determined by the titration method 0.05N AgNO3. Magnesium concentration Mg2+ was calculated using the following method: Magnesium hardness = Total hardness - Calcium hardness Mg2+ (mg/L) = MgH × Mg2+ equivalent weight × EDTA normality. Calcium hardness Ca2+ and total hardness (TH as CaCO3) were determined by the EDTA titration method. Using a standard 0.01N sulfuric acid solution (H2SO4) and a methyl orange indicator, the bicarbonate concentration was determined HCO3-. Using ion-selective electrodes, the Br- concentration of the groundwater was analyzed (Orion Bromide 9635BNWP electrode) which was investigated by the Technical and Scientific Services of the University of Barcelona. Standard solutions were used to confirm the accuracy of the approaches. The estimated analytical errors were between 5 and 10%.

• Lines 162 & 167: Inappropriate citation (perhaps self) that needs to be addressed.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. Removed.

• The authors are requested to provide all raw data as supplementary material, which still remains unaddressed. Furthermore, the sequence of tables in the text should be maintained separately. Similarly, the sequence of tables in the supplementary file also needs to maintain individually (viz. Suppl. Table 1, Suppl. Table 2 etc.).

Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. Done,

Were re-organezed the sequence of table in the both files (supplementary Material and Manuscript)

• Resolution of figure 3 is very poor, which should be replaced with a legible one.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment. Remplaced.

• Captions of tables and figures should be revised as self-explanatory, which still remains unaddressed.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comment. done.

• Detailed data for all samples should be added as a supplementary table for clarity of the article that is presented in Table 1.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. Done. Please consult Table 6 in the supplementary materials, which has the same data as Figure 3's maps showing the spatial distribution of concentrations of physicochemical characteristics.

• Lines 239: “Given a dataset = input vector of i^thexample; = output vector…….” ?? still unaddressed.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your comment. Done.

• Lines 261-262: As I mentioned earlier, the sequence of tables in the text should be maintained separately and need to revise accordingly. Supplementary tables should be cited accordingly.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your comment. Done,

• Groundwater quality for irrigation & drinking (sub-heads 3.2 & 3.3): Please see the major comments regarding WQI and calculate those data, and present them in these sub-sections accordingly.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. Done in section 3.2,

• Line 341: Is it figure 9?

Response 10: Thank you very much for your comment. Done. It represents from figure 8.

• Lines 343-445: Unaddressed (The addition of total hardness data is crucial to the readers in the context of this statement, which can easily calculate by the study result. Although the authors stated in their response “Figure 3 represents the spatial distribution of the total hardness of the samples in the current study”, unfortunately, I did not find any correction regarding this statement both in methodology and results).

Response 11: Thank you very much for your comment. Done in 2.3 section (methodology) and 2.4 (sampling and analysis protocol of groundwater).

In line 162 & 163 "All cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+), and anions (NO3-, Cl-, SO4 2-, 162 HCO3- and Br-) measurements of the sampling waters were performed using the" We have observed that this part is removed instantly in the present document, but we have also remodeled it by a more detailed response to the comment No1 in the Specific Comments

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf