Fuel Effects on Regulated and Unregulated Emissions from Two Commercial Euro V and Euro VI Road Transport Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is about related to the transport sector which is one of the one of the leading causes of air pollution.
The text of the article does not seem flowing.
In my opinion the “Scope and Objectives” should be placed in “Introduction”, it does not belong to experimental such as ”2. Materials and Method – line 146 ”
The “Fuel 4 – 50:50 Blend of Fuels 1 and 3 (PDF50)” -line 19 1 and “Fuel 4 – 50:50 Blend of Fuels 1 and 3 (PDF50) - line 199” are the same, so I suggest to eliminate the duplicated text.
For thee Figures, in almost all of them the axis hve too small letter size to read it, I suggest to increase the size of axis titles.
“Test Vehicles”; “Experimental Programme” ; “Measurements” ; “Test Protocol” I find unnecessary classification/titles for paragraph which is making the flow difficult.
Also “Data Analysis -line 351” is something to discuss in the results.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review of their study. Their comments were addressed as described below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not have any major suggestions, and I could only find only some minor inconsistencies (breaks on lines 207 and 631).
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review of their study.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work provides a detailed technical report on the emissions for 6 fuels. The manuscript provides great details on the testing configurations. The analysis of Tack-to-Wheel CO2 is of great interest to the audience of the journal. The major weakness is that the manuscript is basically more like a technical report that doesn't provide any scientific insights into the emissions mechanisms. The manuscript could be brought to a higher level if the authors also provide some more general insights into the emissions beyond the studied 6 fuels and 2 types of cars. Therefore, I would like to recommend publication after addressing the above issues.
Minors issues:
- Make sure the fonts in all plots being consistent, at least for the subfigures in the same plot.
- Correct grammar errors such as Line 710, "In this experiment B30, did not increase NOx, (vs a B5 comparator) in either". The sentence doesn't sound complete.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review of their study. Their comments were addressed as described below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made the necessary changes and can now be published.
