The paper will be reconsidered after major revisions.
Please write a rebuttal addressing all comments of the reviewers and improve the paper accordingly.

Several comments are well addressed. However, before publication the following should still be revised:
- Avoid too general introductions. So, e.g. delete sentences on lines 25-29; 31-41; 115-118; 119-123; 126-130; 133-135; 232-234;
- Merge chapters 1 & 2
- As commented by reviewer delete references to TDS in entire document, since the measurement is indirect by EC meter. So only discuss your results based on EC removal
- When introducing abbreviations, do it when word appears for the first time and then ALWAYS use abbreviation, such as EC, CSS (do not use SS)..
- Line 43 (and other parts of the manuscript): specify what is meant by “heavily polluted” water (surface water, pond water, drainage water?)
- Line 55: CSS has environmental pollution, since a brine is produced, so this statement is incorrect.
- Line 65-67: repetition, avoid redundancies
- Line 69-71: as suggested by reviewer, it is highly unlikely that roof top water with rusted iron is carcinogenic, so adjust
- Avoid words like “very” (line 75) and “huge” (line 366)
- Line 96-98: rephrase sentence
- Line 236 and onwards: described the results in the past tense
- Line 303-313: merge two section
- Line 314-320: integrate the discussion with previous research with the other results section (no specific discussion section)
- Line 337-354: too extensive explanation. Make it more concised and base it on literature
- Line 355: compare = comparing
- Delete Table 1 & Table 2 and integrate data in text
- Delete Table 4, since the information is too specific

Thanks for the revision of the manuscript and it has now been accepted for publication