A Data-Driven Method for Water Quality Analysis and Prediction for Localized Irrigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is very necessary to revise References 54 and 55.

2. In the abstract part of the article, it is necessary to note that the use of water in agriculture is also increasing.

3. 65 lines   According to {9}？？  change to  James,G et.al.  The author of the reference suggests what to make clear.

4. Is it necessary for the passage from lines 101 to 107 to be included in the text?

5. 117lines  such as？？what？ Be clear about what is in the references.

6. There is a lot of language and sentences in the article that are not perfect, and like the suggestions made above, it is very confusing to see what the author is trying to say.

7. Lines 155 to 188 cite the wrong format. Who emphasizes??? why can't the author be written and finally cited at the end of the article5?Many errors in the article are like this and require a lot of revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your in-depth review and comments. We considered and addressed all your comments on this reviewed version. The attached file contains the replies to each comment and the identification of the changes made. All the new and revised text in the reviewed version is in red.

Thanks a lot,

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shows to evaluate water quality using data-driven method to help local irrigation. While throughout the paper, it is hard to know how the authors to evaluate and predict the water quality for soil and irrigation system. Generally, we first should make objectives, then analyze how water factors influence these objectives of soil and irrigation systems. In this study, we did know the objectives of soil quality and irrigation system. The authors said, they want to reduce the emitter clog risk in the drip irrigation by selecting appropriate water quality. While, they did not show how water quality influence the emitter clog. When the surface water, for example river water, is the main water resources for drip irrigation, the biological matter is main factors for emitter clog, while these factors are not considered in evaluation. Considering the there are a lot of people live along the river, the waste water from the cities could contribute to a lot to the water quality, but this did not take into account. Anyway, this paper did not contribute both scientific methodology and useful results for managing water quality to improve soil quality and irrigation system.

(1)   For surface and sprinkler irrigation system, the selected factors of total iron and harness as well as EC are good factors. while for drip irrigation, emitter clog is sensitive to organic matters in waters, especially for surface water resources. in this case, BOD, COD and  microbe population can be suitable factors. therefore, my suggestion is the water quality evaluation is used for surface and sprinkler irrigation. If the results is mainly used for drip irrigation, some biological clog factors should be considered.

(2)   For Fig 5,6 and 7, In fact, it is really hard to understand how you get these results. How do you define the input and output items?

(3)   There are international and local irrigation water quality standard, which should be used in the evaluation process.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your in-depth review and comments. We considered and addressed all your comments on this reviewed version. The attached file contains the replies to each comment and the identification of the changes made. All the new and revised text in the reviewed version is in red.

Thanks a lot,

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors aim to answer two research questions.

Firstly, what components should be considered to develop a data-driven water quality analysis and monitoring methodology focusing on irrigation-related purposes? 

Secondly, How did the water quality vary in the studied areas for the three hydrological years considered (flood, drought, and average year), considering indices related to soil and irrigation systems?

The paper is well organized and has the proper structure. It is reasonably written but lacks depth and novelty. The technical contribution is low and not clear. The authors provide an extensive theoretical approach. Many aspects need to be clarified and improved.

1)Enrich the sub-section " Use of AI for Water Quality Evaluation" with the following references:

i)Water quality classification using machine learning algorithms.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102920

ii)Efficient Data-Driven Machine Learning Models for Water Quality Prediction

https://doi.org/10.3390/computation11020016

2)The methodology is not sufficiently demonstrated. For example, the authors should include the design considerations of the method and procedures.

3)Please add a block diagram of the proposed approach step by step. 

4)There is no clear presentation of the results and their commentary. Try to make a more coherent, accurate and focused presentation.

5)The results remain without compelling evidence of research novelty. The discussion of the results is lacking, comparing the literature that supports each of the hypotheses with the results obtained in the empirical study.

6)The figures must have a better resolution because their current quality is poor as some of the details are hardly recognizable.

7)The Discussion should include the presentation of this study’s aims and results. Authors need to perform a comparison of their results with more similar studies based on features, datasets, or algorithms.

8)The authors should summarize the limitations and the potential issues of this study, emphasizing the application nature of the proposed method in practice. Also, the overall merit of the proposed approach should be highlighted.

9)Many of the article's references are not up to date (should be the last 5 years).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your in-depth review and comments. We considered and addressed all your comments on this reviewed version. The attached file contains the replies to each comment and the identification of the changes made. All the new and revised text in the reviewed version is in red.

Thanks a lot,

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The modification is very serious and perfect.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account my concerns.

I do not have further comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Moderate editing of the English language is required.