The Sources of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Road Dust and Their Potential Hazard

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: The Sources of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Road Dust and Their Potential Hazard

Abstract:

The abstract provides a concise summary of the research; however, it can be further improved to enhance its clarity and completeness. To enhance the abstract, the following points should be addressed:

Specify the significance of studying PAHs in road dust and their potential health risks.

Clearly state the objectives of the study.

Mention the methodology used for PAH detection and source apportionment.

Summarize the key findings regarding PAH concentrations, identified sources, and associated health risks.

Provide explicit recommendations or implications for future actions based on the findings.

Introduction:

The introduction sets the stage for the research, but it lacks some essential elements. To strengthen the introduction, consider the following suggestions:

Clearly define and explain the significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in road dust and their potential health hazards.

Provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on PAHs in road dust, including their sources, distribution, and associated health risks.

Clearly state the research objectives, highlighting the need for identifying PAH sources and evaluating their potential hazards.

Literature Review:

The literature review section should be expanded to provide a thorough and up-to-date understanding of PAHs in road dust. Consider the following improvements:

Conduct an in-depth review of recent studies on PAHs in road dust, focusing on their sources, analytical techniques, and health impacts.

Highlight the current knowledge gaps in the field and explain how the study aims to address these gaps.

Consider adding the following references

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.087 

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159303 

Provide a comprehensive discussion on the health risks associated with PAH exposure, including the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and hazard index (HI).

Methodology:

The methodology section should provide sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility and validity of the study. Consider incorporating the following:

Provide a clear description of the sampling locations, sample collection procedures, and sample size.

Elaborate on the analytical technique (gas chromatograph–flame ionization detector) used for PAH detection.

Explain the source apportionment technique (absolute principal component score-multiple linear regression) and its application in this study.

Discuss the limitations of the methodology and potential sources of error.

Results:

The results section provides important findings but lacks organization and clarity. Consider the following suggestions:

Present the PAH concentration data in a clear and concise manner, including ranges and average values for each PAH compound.

Clearly state the results of the source apportionment analysis and identify the contributions of each source to the PAH levels in road dust.

Provide a comprehensive discussion on the implications of the results, linking them to the research objectives and existing literature.

Discussion and Analysis:

The discussion and analysis section should focus on interpreting the results and relating them to the broader context. Consider the following improvements:

Discuss the implications of the identified PAH sources in road dust and their potential environmental and health impacts.

Compare and contrast the findings with existing studies, highlighting similarities, differences, and possible explanations.

Discuss the strengths and limitations of the study, addressing potential biases or uncertainties in the results.

Provide practical recommendations for mitigating PAH pollution in road dust based on the findings.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should provide a clear summary of the main findings and their implications. Consider the following suggestions:

Summarize the key findings related to PAH concentrations, identified sources, and health risks.

Emphasize the significance of the findings and their potential implications for policy-making or public health.

 

Provide specific recommendations for future actions or research to address the identified issues effectively.

First and foremost, the intrigue and captivation provided by your work is undeniable, reflecting the immense dedication and fervor with which it has been undertaken. Nevertheless, there exists scope for enhancing the usage of the English language to guarantee a more lucid and efficacious transmission of your intended message. The manuscript, in its present state, necessitates rigorous editing to establish grammatical precision, seamless continuity, and the rectification of typographical errors. The importance of such modifications is paramount in retaining the reader's interest, upholding the credibility of the work, and projecting an aura of professionalism.

Furthermore, instances of convoluted sentence structure detract from the clarity of the narrative. Decomposing these sentences and adopting a more straightforward language will undoubtedly contribute to a lucid and coherent narrative thread throughout your manuscript. When it comes to the choice of vocabulary, it is advisable to reconsider certain terms and phrases to make sure they align with the understanding level of the targeted audience. The use of specialized jargon or excessively complex terminologies risks alienating readers, thus limiting the reach of your work. Strive to make your work as inclusive as possible, ensuring that the breadth of your audience isn't compromised by the depth of your research.

In addition, some portions of the manuscript could use better consolidation of ideas for improved cohesion. Adhering to a more linear narrative flow would amplify the accuracy and comprehensibility of your content, making it easier to follow for readers. While these linguistic concerns need to be addressed, it cannot be overemphasized that the core of your work is genuinely enthralling. Upon rectification of these issues, your manuscript will manifest its potential as a stronger, more engaging piece of scholarly work.

To this end, I would urge you to seek the assistance of a professional English language editor or proofreader who can help elevate the language, readability, and overall quality of your manuscript to the desired level. This investment will undeniably bear fruit in presenting your compelling research in the most effective and eloquent manner.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Greetings!

We have answered your comments and also made revisions thoroughly to the manuscript. Please find them in detail in a file separately uploaded here.

We appreciate your kind cooperation.

 

Regards

 

Md Firoz Khan

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I have already checked your manuscript entitled "The sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in road dust and their potential hazard". After reviewing the manuscript. I found that the main contributions and benefits of your research "effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in road dust and their potential hazard". The recommendations for this decision are as follows:

1. In line 16, the sentence “…(GC-FID) while sources apportionment of…” should be changed into “…(GC-FID) while source apportionment of…”.

2. In line 79, the sentence “…the modeling, c) to assess the potential health risk of…” should be changed into “…the modeling, and c) to assess the potential health risk of…”.

3. In line 113, the sentence “…modeling is calculating…” should be changed into “…modeling is to calculate…”.

4. In line 79, the sentence “…by Harrison et al. (1996; Hopke (2016; Thurston and Spengler (1985.” should be changed into “…by Harrison et al. (1996); Hopke (2016); Thurston and Spengler (1985).”.

5. In line 141, the sentence “Khan et al. (2010 also successfully…” should be changed into “Khan et al. (2010) also successfully…”.

6. In line 148, the sentence “….as shown in Equation 1.” should be changed into “….as shown in Equation (1)”.

7. The author needs to explain in detail in the "Introduction" what is the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Moreover, the significance and progress of your research needs to be explained in "introduction" section. Some references should be cited as follows: (a) Application of the coal mine floor rating (CMFR) to assess the floor stability in a Central Appalachian Coal Mine. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 2020. (b) Investigation of collector mixtures on the flotation dynamics of low-rank coal[J]. Fuel, 2022,327: 125171.

8. The “Conclusions” and “Introduction” sections should be refined and shorten.

9. The quality of the figures should be improved.

10. Authors should carefully check the format of references and citations.

no.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The study aims to determine the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in road dust near bus stops and identify their sources and potential health risks. The research text clearly describes the methods used to detect PAHs and identify their sources. The range of PAH concentration in road dust was detailed, and it was established that indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene had the highest concentration. The study successfully identified three main sources of PAHs - oil leaks, fuel combustion, and coal burning. It was also established that potential health risks for children are higher than for adults. This is critical information for taking measures to protect public health.

 

In conclusion, the study recommends that the government consider necessary measures to improve fuel quality or introduce alternative environmentally-friendly public transportation. This is a recommendation that should be taken into account and weighed for practical implementation in order to reduce potential health risks to the population. Overall, the study is informative and beneficial for society.

However, the article requires some revisions.

1.     Таble 1, Table 2, Table 3, Figure 2a and Figure 2b are missing from the study and the supplementary section

2.     In lines 125, 126, 137, 141, 185, 189, 204, 205, 261, 318, 324, 352, 371, 391, 393 please check the format of references. 

3.     I recommend including additional materials in the main text of the article.

4.     There is no "Discussion" section in the article, although the authors state it in section 3.

After processing it is possible for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper present some intersting results on the distributions of PAHs in road dust from the Kuala Lumpur City, Malaysia, and further discussed the source of those PAHs and their potential hazards for the citizens. This manuscript is presented concisely and with clear discussions in detail. However, there are certain issues that need to be revised before I can recommend its acceptance. Firstly, the term "fuel" should encompass gasoline, diesel, natural gas,  liquefied gas, and even coal. Consequently, I question why the authors have separeted natual gas and fuel combustion into distinct factors (factors 2 and 3). Secondly, if the ILCR values align with previous research, there is no need for further explanation. However, if the ILCR values differ from those reported in previous works (as indicated in section 3.3.1.2.1), the authors must provide a careful and thorough explanation for such divergence.

The language is fine, but some mistakes still exist, needing more carefully revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The work by Hishamuddin et al. aims to measure the emitted PAHs from road dust near bus stations, prognosis potential sources, and assess their relevant health risk. Although a progressive work was performed and presented, some parts are missing and the paper presented is hard to follow by the Reviewer.

1.       Vital information is missing from the submitted manuscript: Table 1 (L164), Table 2 (L219), Figure 2 (L219), Figure 2a (L289), Figure 2b (L296), Table 3 (L310), Table 3 (L399).

2.       Once the abbreviations are explained, then they are used directly. This often doesn’t happen in the manuscript (L41: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)/ L200, L412/, etc. Explain also the abbreviation KMO (L126)?

3.       There are typos and grammar mistakes: L 54: that affect PAHPAHs concentration, L342: to 10^-1,0, L358: Table S19 and Table that, L360: come S20

4.       Line 45: PAHs can be produced during biological processes. How, give explain this better?

5.       Figure S2? This is shown in Fig. S1.

6.       Section 2.1.: Provide the Temperature and RH values during sampling.

7.       Reference issues: First, all the references from the SM must be included in the main manuscript. Secondly, correct the following: L141: Khan et al. (2010 also / L185: Chiu et al. (2015, / L189 /L262 / L314 /L324 /L352 /L366 /L367 /L371 /L386 /L391 /L393

8.       L191: …by about 9% over the past 17 years. How was this estimated?

9.       There are 26 Tables and 2 Figures in Supplementary Material. This is a vast and unusual number! Try to minimize their number. Also, in SM, Fig. S3 is probably Fig. S2.

10.   The details of TOC and GC-FID analyses must be transferred to the main manuscript.

11.   Discuss the accuracy of Figure 2 based on the APCS-MLR. A number of 43% is still unknown, why? Secondly, why natural gas and coal burning are accounted for together?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend publishing this article in its current format.

Author Response

Please find the responses attached to the mail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has  been modified and can be accepted.

no.

Author Response

Please find the responses attached to the mail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.

I received a revised version of the manuscript and, unfortunately, found that almost all the comments I made were corrected. The authors did not provide a detailed response to my comments.

Unfortunately, the authors were extremely inattentive and careless in making corrections to the manuscript.

I will list again some points that need to be improved.

 

1. The article must be issued according to the rules of the journal. The article is not structured. Why are there text descriptions in the additional materials. It is logical to put them in the main text of the manuscript. References to literature sources are not issued.

2. Why sections 2.2 and 2.3.1 contain only tables. And there is no description of them?

3. There is no discussion section.

4. I recommend including additional materials in the main text of the article.

Author Response

Please find the response attached to this mail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The reviewer is somehow disappointed as his comments (see the attached file; as appeared in the e-system) were not addressed. Instead, wrongly, comments by another reviewer were delivered. Since the procedure was not appropriately followed, I must reject the revised version without reading it. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the response attached file to the mail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

 Accept in present form

Reviewer 5 Report

Reviewer’s comments were addressed by the authors and therefore I suggest the publication of the revised paper.

For example, line 118: The procedures are about 200.0 mg of dust sample was weighed and dissolved in 50.0...

For example, line 282: The PAHs concentrations in this study, Vietnam [51] and Ghana [62] are close.