Trends in Emission Inventory of Marine Traffic for Port of Haifa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The innovation of the paper is not prominent and powerful enough, the structure has some problems to be optimized, and the sentences need to be polished.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your work and valuable feedback. I much appreciate it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors estimate emissions of ocean going vessels from Haifa port based on fuel consumption, which in turn is based on IMO Tiers and other data bases, with the help of a model that can be applied to other ports in the world as well. The results are interesting, suggesting that the main problem is the old age of ships. Strengths of the paper are first, this model-based novel approach, and second, that not only Greenhouse gases are addressed but, more important, a variety of so-called common air contaminants like SOx, NOx, CO, HC, and particular matter.
(1) However, the paper suffers from several drawbacks that must be addressed in order to publish it. Altogether, the sloppy style of presentation is very sloppy, which puts an unreasonable demand on the reviewer and could have easily amended before submission. In detail:
(a) Figures: Many of the figures are not properly referenced. Instead, repeatedly the phrase "Error! Reference source not found" appears in the text. Figure captions are split across paragraphs and vary in font size. The enumeration of figures is not correct (e.g., Figure 1 is duplicate, p. 3 and p. 4, and followed by Figure 4 on page 5). The graphical quality of the figures is bad (e.g. too small font in Figure 1 on p. 3, in the figure without number at the bottom of p. 3, and Fig. 10 (p. 13/14), Figures 4 (p. 5) and Fig. 10 (p. 13/14) are too wide. One figure does not contain the claimed content, which lies at the heart of the argument: In Fig. 7 (p. 11), entitled "Age Distribution by Tier", no (conditional) age distribution is visible, only the distribution of tiers. In another figure, the caption is not correct: Figure 10 (p. 13/14) does not show cumulative emissions.
(b) Tables: The columns of Table 1 need to be explained in the Table caption. The table should be in landscape format.
(b) Abbreviations: Abbreviations must be introduced at first appearance, not counting the abstract. Examples of using not introduced abbreviations: SQL (p. 1 line 40), AE (p. 2 line 28), FC (p. 2 line 31), EF (p. 5 line 42), PM (p. 6 line 29), RM/DM (p. 7 line 27).
(c) Model equations (p. 7) and their referencing in the text (p. 6): The enumeration of equations does not agree. In the text (p. 6), equations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are mentioned (lines 34, 43). However, there is no equation 7 in the model (p. 7). Further, the equations must be explained in more detail or references from the literature should be provided on their contents. In particular, in eq. 6 (p. 7) it is not clear where the numbers (0.26, 0.081, 0.103) come from.
(d) Literature references: All (!) literature must be properly referenced and listed in the references section of the paper. For example, the first paragraph on p. 6 several sources are mentioned that do not have a reference number.
(e) English language: There are a lot of grammatical mistakes in the language. Since I am not a native speaker, I can mention only the most striking examples: p. 2 lines 3-4: Subjects of the sentences are missing; p. 2 line 46: publicly instead of public; p. 3 line 8-9; no proper sentence; p. 3 line 10: dito; p. 4 lines 37-38. dito; p. 5, lines 2-3. incomplete sentence; p, 5 line 7: presents instead of present; p. 5 lines 9-11: no proper sentence; p. 5 line 46; per each type, each must be left out; p. 5 lines 47-48: verb is missing (is acknowledged). I stop here, but there are many more mistakes. Pleas have the paper proof-read by a native speaker before resubmission.
(2) Up-to-dateness of central sources and results: At the core of the modelling and results is the following literature: "Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014" (number [5] in the references). Since the paper is to appear in 2021, this is not a proper source because there is already a newer version: "Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2020". In order to ensure actuality of results, I think all data must be recalculated using this newer source.
(3) Structure of introduction: What is the difference between Section 1.1 "Aims and Objectives" and 1.2 "Scope of Study"? I suggest leaving out the heading 1.2 and summarizing all content under 1.1. Then, subsections with a single point (1.2.1, 1.3.1), should not be enumerated as subsections.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your work and valuable feedback. I much appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor
Thank you for sending me the attached manuscript.
This study investigates Haifa ports emissions’ contribution to the exist-10 ing daily emission level. A bottom-up method is adopted by the authors. There are more than ten “Error! Reference source not found” shown in the manuscript. The authors should check it carefully then submit the revisions. My comments are listed below:
- In the introduction section, more background information may needed.
Besides an emission factor-based method, regression models are also adopted in developing emission inventories. Please kindly refer to this research. It is suggested that to be mentioned in the introduction section.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231017308701
- 1.1 emission factors. It is suggested to draw a table to show the emission factors used in this work.
- In section 2.1.1, there are so many Error! Reference source not found. Please be carefully when checking your manuscript and then submit.
- In section 3.1.1, also so many Errors! Can not go ahead if these errors not fixed!
- After building the emission inventory, the spatial-temporal dynamics of emissions are also discussed in previous research. It is suggested to be mentioned in the discussion section as future work. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721051585
- Is there any comparison between your results and previous research? How about the uncertainties?
Author Response
Thank you so much for your work and valuable feedback. I much appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has much improved according to most suggestions in my first review. However, two issues are still not completely solved:
(1) (My former comment 1 (a)): There are still problems with the manuscript style:
- "Error! Reference source not found" appears at p. 9 line 14 and at p. 12 line 1.
- p. 4 lines 8-9: In Fig. 1, "left" and "right" panel are not properly referenced. ("Left" should be the wind rose and "right" Haifa bay. Instead, "left" is connected with Haifa bay and "right" is missing.
- p. 7 lines 2-3: Bold face is used for plain text. Paragraph is ill-formatted.
- p. 10 lines 1-3. There is a table caption but no table in the vicinity.
- p. 11. Where does the text continue that ends in line 9?
- p. 20 lines 2-3: In the caption of Fig. 10, please leave out the word "cumulative". In statistcs, this is a technical term meaning that for day n, data are summed up across days 1-n. This is not the case in your figure. Instead of cumulative emissions, you show daily emissions.
- p. 25, 26: Fig. 16 appears three times, is ill-positioned and destroys the text.
To save you and me more rounds of review, I strongly advise the authors to check carefully the style of themanuscript after it has been uploaded on the publisher's portal, and to retract and correct it if necessary.
(2) (My former comment 1 (b)): Most abbreviations have been properly introduced now, with one exception: "SQL" on p. 1 line 40 is explained only on p. 9 but should be explained here instead.
(3) (My former comment 1 (d)): Although a large body of references have been added or improved, there is still some literature without references: p. 9 lines 3-5: I cannot find "IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute 2004 Study" and "HOK Marine consult ApS 2015 Study" in the References.
(4) (My former comment 1 (e)): The English language has much improved. However, on p. 5 line 10, it must read "to examine" instead of "examine". On p. 7 line 50, it must read "for each type" or "per type" (but not "per each type").
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for your work and constructive comments.
I greatly appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for sending me the revised manuscript
After revision, the manuscript had been significantly improved
May I suggest accept
Thank you.
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for your work and constructive comments.
I greatly appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
