Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I'd like to suggest some major revisions as below and rearrange the paper with some comment about possible causes of trends detected (some positive and some negative), moreover are not clear references to some topics, as reported in Introduction and Conclusions chapters, such as climate change, link between air pollution and allergies, increase of pollutants, influence of meteorological parameters, air quality and its effect on human health, that are no addressed and only mentioned, I believe, to justify the choice of pollen monitored. 

Title: only  pollen grains are reported, but in the paper Alternaria is also presented

In all the text the names of genus or species must be in italics.

Introduction – In this section you do not report any reference to Alternaria as allergenic biological particle: why you have studied this kind of spore?

Line 34 – Cancel “our territory” and replace with “this territory”

Lines 39-45 – You refer to “synergistic effect….between the allergens present in pollen grains and atmospheric pollution (5, 6)”, but in line 44 you report “we do not have sufficient evidence of the synergistic link between…”: the two sentences appear as contradictory concepts;

Line 51- You report that allergies due to pollen are recurring every spring; I suggest you to clarify that in Italy the allergenic pollen season is spread from January (Cupressaceae) to September (Ambrosia) with peaks in spring months;

Lines 55, 61, 65 – Please, report some references.

M & M

Line 131 – Why “for Lazio”? your study refers to city of Rome;

Line 134 – Do not use any acronym to indicate the academic structure;

Lines 137-142 – Irrelevant information;

Line 144 – Irrevelant information about a third monitoring station that has not been used in this study;

Lines 162-168 – Irrelevant and redundant information: the method is described in UNI EN Standard and in Manuale R.I.M.A. (26-27);

Line 171 – What criterion was followed to list the examined taxa? Is Betulaceae most significative allergenic taxon and Urticaceae the least?

Lines 176-241 – The description of the studied families is irrelevant for work purposes. I suggest to shorten this chapter, by restricting the list of genera source of airborne monitored pollen.

Lines 199-201 – You report, correctly, that Betulaceae family is divided into two subfamilies, Betuloideae and Coryloideae. Why you refer in the text to Betulaceae for Alnus and Betula and to Corylaceae for Carpinus, Corylus and Ostrya?

 

Results and Discussion

Line 250 – Correct “on in”;

Line 255 – I suggest substituting “percentages” with “quantity”;

Lines 256-257 – Cupressaceae/Taxaceae is a taxon then “The allergenic taxon …… is Cupressaceae/Taxaceae;

Line 259 – What are the stations RM5 and RM6? In Materials and Methods they are not reported; you refer at a percentage of the total: what does “total” mean? I think it is referring to Annual Pollen Integral (API): please, correct and include in M&M this reference (Galan et al., 2017), moreover you must point out that these data are the average of 17 years;

Figure 4, legend – It is not clear: i, the two colors are not always easy to distinguish; ii, you report “daily concentration” are you sure? I suppose the bars refer to weekly data, please chech it; why Alternaria do not present data in 2003-2005 period?

Lines 280-281 – “…the concentrations present significant concentration trends”: what does it mean?

Line 289 – Decide how to indicate the two studied stations: sometimes you use RM5 and RM6, sometimes Centro Tor Vergata and Ospedale San Pietro: I think it would be better to use always the same name;

Figure 6 – What is the source of data, all taxa present “allergenicity very high”?

Line 319- The unit of measurement of API is Pollen * day/m³ and Spore * day/m³ (line 324);

Line 333 – Correct “8” with “7”

Figure 8 – It is not clear and report the same data of Table 2.

 

Conclusions – You have shown that, beyond quantitative differences, the two stations showed the same air concentration trend, but with an increase for Betulaceae and decrease for all other pollens: do you have some ideas about possible causes?  

Line 365 – From your data, it doesn’t look like climate change has influenced the presence of pollen in atmosphere (indeed, many taxa show a decrease of API);

Line 370 – Please report some references about “an increased pollen allergy”, the same in relation to increase of pollutants (line 375);

Lines 383-384 – You have not considered meteorological parameters;

Line 387 – Pollen and spore studied have all a size larger that 10 µm, then not part of PM₁₀: please clarify your idea. 

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

 

Status and trend of the main allergenic pollen grains in the city of Rome

Alessandro Di Menno di Bucchianico et al.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'd like to suggest some major revisions as below and rearrange the paper with some comment about possible causes of trends detected (some positive and some negative), moreover are not clear references to some topics, as reported in Introduction and Conclusions chapters, such as climate change, link between air pollution and allergies, increase of pollutants, influence of meteorological parameters, air quality and its effect on human health, that are no addressed and only mentioned, I believe, to justify the choice of pollen monitored. 

Title: only pollen grains are reported, but in the paper Alternaria is also presented

Comment accepted: Title has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

In all the text the names of genus or species must be in italics.

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Introduction – In this section you do not report any reference to Alternaria as allergenic biological particle: why you have studied this kind of spore?

Comment accepted: The introduction has been supplemented according to the indications (please see the uploaded file).

Line 34 – Cancel “our territory” and replace with “this territory”

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Lines 39-45 – You refer to “synergistic effect….between the allergens present in pollen grains and atmospheric pollution (5, 6)”, but in line 44 you report “we do not have sufficient evidence of the synergistic link between…”: the two sentences appear as contradictory concepts;

Thanks for reporting, bad formulation on our part, we meant to express the need for further research into the mechanisms of the synergistic effect. the text has been corrected.

Line 51- You report that allergies due to pollen are recurring every spring; I suggest you to clarify that in Italy the allergenic pollen season is spread from January (Cupressaceae) to September (Ambrosia) with peaks in spring months;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected as suggested (please see the uploaded file).

 

Lines 55, 61, 65 – Please, report some references.

Comment accepted: references added (please see the uploaded file).

 

Materials and Methods

Line 131 – Why “for Lazio”? your study refers to city of Rome;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected as suggested (please see the uploaded file).

Line 134 – Do not use any acronym to indicate the academic structure;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Lines 137-142 – Irrelevant information;

Comment accepted: sentence deleted (please see the uploaded file).

Line 144 – Irrevelant information about a third monitoring station that has not been used in this study;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Lines 162-168 – Irrelevant and redundant information: the method is described in UNI EN Standard and in Manuale R.I.M.A. (26-27);

Thank you for your suggestion, nevertheless our article is an interdisciplinary work carried out and also addressed tot atmospheric chemists. We believe that the quoted part may be useful for understanding the sampling method used in the sampling campaign.

Line 171 – What criterion was followed to list the examined taxa? Is Betulaceae most significative allergenic taxon and Urticaceae the least?

The pollen taxa are sorted according to the alphabetical order followed by the Alternaria spore

Lines 176-241 – The description of the studied families is irrelevant for work purposes. I suggest to shorten this chapter, by restricting the list of genera source of airborne monitored pollen.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised and reduced the mentioned part, we believe that the this decription, reviewed as per the attached article, may be useful for the understanding the sources of the measured taxa to an audience of different formation.

Lines 199-201 – You report, correctly, that Betulaceae family is divided into two subfamilies, Betuloideae and Coryloideae. Why you refer in the text to Betulaceae for Alnus and Betula and to Corylaceae for Carpinus, Corylus and Ostrya?

In order not to cause confusion in allergists, in this article we have decided to follow the old classification of allergenic taxa still used today by the National Aerobiological Monitoring Network in communication to the public.

 

Results and Discussion

Line 250 – Correct “on in”;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line 255 – I suggest substituting “percentages” with “quantity”;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Lines 256-257 – Cupressaceae/Taxaceae is a taxon then “The allergenic taxon …… is Cupressaceae/Taxaceae;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line 259 – What are the stations RM5 and RM6? In Materials and Methods they are not reported; you refer at a percentage of the total: what does “total” mean? I think it is referring to Annual Pollen Integral (API): please, correct and include in M&M this reference (Galan et al., 2017), moreover you must point out that these data are the average of 17 years;

Comment accepted: We have explained in the text thatRM5 and RM6 are the station codes of Tor Vergata and S. Pietro respectively. Total explained in the text

Figure 4, legend – It is not clear: i, the two colors are not always easy to distinguish; ii, you report “daily concentration” are you sure? I suppose the bars refer to weekly data, please chech it; why Alternaria do not present Data in 2003-2005 period?

The legend has been integrated, we confirm that the data are daily, Alternaria monitoring started in 2005

Lines 280-281 – “…the concentrations present significant concentration trends”: what does it mean?

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line 289 – Decide how to indicate the two studied stations: sometimes you use RM5 and RM6, sometimes Centro Tor Vergata and Ospedale San Pietro: I think it would be better to use always the same name;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Figure 6 – What is the source of data, all taxa present “allergenicity very high”?

Sources: Global Atlas of Allergy, EAACI, 2014, https://www.actaplantarum.org/

Line 319- The unit of measurement of API is Pollen * day/m³ and Spore * day/m³ (line 324);

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line 333 – Correct “8” with “7”

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Figure 8 – It is not clear and report the same data of Table 2.

Thank you for your suggestion, nevertheless we think it is useful to show the time series of the trends in order to be able to evaluate the fluctuations that do not appear from the reading of the numerical results of the Kendall test.

Conclusions – You have shown that, beyond quantitative differences, the two stations showed the same air concentration trend, but with an increase for Betulaceae and decrease for all other pollens: do you have some ideas about possible causes?  

Unfortunately, at the moment, without the analysis of climate data we could only present speculative hypotheses.

Line 365 – From your data, it doesn’t look like climate change has influenced the presence of pollen in atmosphere (indeed, many taxa show a decrease of API);

Thank you for your suggestion, we talked about the growing interest in the topic that deserves future researches.

Line 370 – Please report some references about “an increased pollen allergy”, the same in relation to increase of pollutants (line 375);

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Lines 383-384 – You have not considered meteorological parameters;

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line 387 – Pollen and spore studied have all a size larger that 10 µm, then not part of PM₁₀: please clarify your idea. 

It is true that the geometric diameter of airborne pollens is generally greater than 10 µm, however, the aerodynamic diameter of many taxa is less than 10 µm and they fall within the thoracic fraction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper needs deep changes before to be published. There are errors with some terms, the structure of the article, presenting results and discussion, and in chapter contents.

Terms with errors:

“Pollens” do not exit. Pollen in plural is written as "pollen". In plural this term can be also written as pollen grains. Please, check the article on terminology in Aerobiology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319465903_Recommended_terminology_for_aerobiological_studies

The term “Airborne pollen integration” does not exit, but yes Airborne Pollen Integral.

Authors present “biological pollutants and allergens”; I wonder what the difference is, why allergens are not biological pollutants.

Authors mention “asthma and allergic diseases”, but allergic asthma is and allergic disease. 

Authors mention the main allergenic species and their diffusion… but species do not diffuse

Introduction

This chapter should be presented with a background of this study. Some information is related to allergy, but it is not the main goal of this study. Authors include some information without any reference, e.g., the number of Italians that suffer allergy.

Authors says that aerobiology study the role of pollutants on pollen, but it not always occur and it is not the goal of this study.

The authors mention the climate change, but this paper is not related to this topic.

The studied period, the data and other information should be presented in material and methods.

The authors do not present well the goals of this study, only present the importance of this study for allergies.

Authors should rewrite the introduction with a background of this study, the hypothesis and the goals of this study in a clear and concise way.

Material and methods

This chapter should be also rewritten. Authors start present one of the statistical analyses applied to the data, but they have also use others, e.g., correlations and trends. Authors describe the Mann-Kendall analysis, but in a scientific paper it is not necessary to describe the applied analysis, only mentioning what analysis has been used.

The chapter must be presented in another order. First presenting the studied areas, but not the time the samplers are running in those places, neither if near or not of a meteorological agency, because authors have not used these parameters. The authors must only present the studied years for not to confuse to the reader.

The second subchapter on instrumental description, should present that today a norm exit for Hirst type spore trap sampler monitoring: EN 16868:2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5f1349aa-f4cc-430a-978e-3044737e3f28/en-16868-2019.

The authors must clarify how daily data have been presented and how the pollen season has been defined.

The third subchapter present information not related to this study. Authors mention to allergenic taxa but without any reference. On the other hand, they only present botanical families and a family have some allergenic species and some non-allergenic species. Authors discuss about the new plant classification, but it is not related to his study. They also present the different studied families with information not necessary for this study. This information is not material, neither method. This subchapter should be removed.

Authors should include a final subchapter for statistical analysis used in this study..

Results and discussion

In general, authors present results that have been not presented as a goal of this study. On the other hand, results have been not discussed with other studies related to them.

In the first subchapter for pollen time series, authors only present the average pollen percentages. In the legend of figure 3 they mention “average pollen distribution”, but they only represent percentages. Authors says that the two sampling sites respond to the same meteorological and climatic conditions, but they have not studied these parameters for presenting this result. They present a Pearson correlation analysis, but it has been not mentioned in material and methods. They present these results in both, a table and a figure and it sound redundant. They repeat for mentioning the meteorological conditions and other atmospheric contaminants, but they have not used these data. They says that results of this analysis are good, but statistically the results are not good or bad, but significant or not significant, and authors should present the degree of significance. Figure 6 is a table and the results do not correspond with the text that authors have written.

In subchapter on pollen trends, the authors discuss about the European regulation, but it is not the goal of this paper. In this subchapter, the authors not present trends, but the annual pollen integral.

Before publication of this paper, it should be rewritten.

 

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

 

Status and trend of the main allergenic pollen grains in the city of Rome

Alessandro Di Menno di Bucchianico et al.

 

Comments:

Terms with errors:

“Pollens” do not exit. Pollen in plural is written as "pollen". In plural this term can be also written as pollen grains. Please, check the article on terminology in Aerobiology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319465903_Recommended_terminology_for_aerobiological_studies

Comment accepted: The term pollens has been corrected to pollen in all occurrences (please see the uploaded file).

The term “Airborne pollen integration” does not exit, but yes Airborne Pollen Integral.

Comment accepted: The term has been corrected to Annual Pollen Integral (please see the uploaded file).

Authors present “biological pollutants and allergens”; I wonder what the difference is, why allergens are not biological pollutants.

Comment accepted: this expression is sometimes used in literature; however we believe his suggestion to be correct. The phrase has been corrected to biological pollutants (please see the uploaded file).

Authors mention “asthma and allergic diseases”, but allergic asthma is and allergic disease.

The terms "asthma and allergic diseases" are frequently used together in the medical scientific literature to which we refer, here are some examples:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045871/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7825986/

https://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=%22asthma+and+allergic+diseases%22&hl=it&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Authors mention the main allergenic species and their diffusion… but species do not diffuse

Comment accepted: The phrase has been corrected to “main allergenic pollen and spores and their diffusion” (please see the uploaded file).

 

Introduction

This chapter should be presented with a background of this study. Some information is related to allergy, but it is not the main goal of this study. Authors include some information without any reference, e.g., the number of Italians that suffer allergy.

            Some references included.

Mentions to the role of air pollution and climate change on the effects of pollen on human health and its presence in the air are intended to frame the scientific context in which this article is placed, in this sense it seems useful to refer to it in a introduction.

Authors says that aerobiology study the role of pollutants on pollen, but it not always occur and it is not the goal of this study.

The authors mention the climate change, but this paper is not related to this topic.

Mentions to the role of air pollution and climate change on the effects of pollen on human health and its presence in the air are intended to frame the scientific context in which this article is placed, in this sense it seems useful to refer to it in a introduction.

The studied period, the data and other information should be presented in material and methods.

Comment accepted: the paragraph has been moved to Materials and methods.

The authors do not present well the goals of this study, only present the importance of this study for allergies.

Comment accepted (please see the uploaded file).

Authors should rewrite the introduction with a background of this study, the hypothesis and the goals of this study in a clear and concise way.

Comment accepted (please see the uploaded file).

 

Material and methods

This chapter should be also rewritten. Authors start present one of the statistical analyses applied to the data, but they have also use others, e.g., correlations and trends. Authors describe the Mann-Kendall analysis, but in a scientific paper it is not necessary to describe the applied analysis, only mentioning what analysis has been used.

The chapter must be presented in another order. First presenting the studied areas, but not the time the samplers are running in those places, neither if near or not of a meteorological agency, because authors have not used these parameters. The authors must only present the studied years for not to confuse to the reader.

The second subchapter on instrumental description, should present that today a norm exit for Hirst type spore trap sampler monitoring: EN 16868:2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5f1349aa-f4cc-430a-978e-3044737e3f28/en-16868-2019.

The authors must clarify how daily data have been presented and how the pollen season has been defined.

The third subchapter present information not related to this study. Authors mention to allergenic taxa but without any reference. On the other hand, they only present botanical families and a family have some allergenic species and some non-allergenic species. Authors discuss about the new plant classification, but it is not related to his study. They also present the different studied families with information not necessary for this study. This information is not material, neither method. This subchapter should be removed. Authors should include a final subchapter for statistical analysis used in this study.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised and reduced the mentioned paragraphs, we believe that this description, reviewed as per the attached article, may be useful for the understanding the sources of the measured taxa to an audience of different formation.

 

Results and discussion

In general, authors present results that have been not presented as a goal of this study. On the other hand, results have been not discussed with other studies related to them.

In the first subchapter for pollen time series, authors only present the average pollen percentages. In the legend of figure 3 they mention “average pollen distribution”, but they only represent percentages. Authors says that the two sampling sites respond to the same meteorological and climatic conditions, but they have not studied these parameters for presenting this result. They present a Pearson correlation analysis, but it has been not mentioned in material and methods. They present these results in both, a table and a figure and it sound redundant. They repeat for mentioning the meteorological conditions and other atmospheric contaminants, but they have not used these data. They says that results of this analysis are good, but statistically the results are not good or bad, but significant or not significant, and authors should present the degree of significance. Figure 6 is a table and the results do not correspond with the text that authors have written.

In subchapter on pollen trends, the authors discuss about the European regulation, but it is not the goal of this paper. In this subchapter, the authors not present trends, but the annual pollen integral.

Before publication of this paper, it should be rewritten.

Thank you for your suggestion, the text has been revised in all its parts in accordance with the indications received

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It’s important to know what the synergistic effect of allergens present in pollen grains and atmospheric pollution on human health is. Alessandro et al. conducted aerobiological studies in Rome, which describes the status and trend of the main allergenic taxa present in the years from 2003 to 2019. This work is beneficial for our knowledge on the main allergenic species and their diffusion on the urban area of Rome, hence for predicting and protecting allergic symptoms. However there are some issues that need to be fixed. Most of the sentences are complex, sometimes very odd. I will suggest shortening some of them and make them friendly to wider readers. There are too much word explaining the SK test and the main allergenic pollen taxa. And it will be better to add a section to explain what factors and how these factors affecting the pollen trends in Rome.  

 

 

There are some other suggestions as follows 

 

Abstract

Remove the refs in this section

Line 19 replace the word “zero”

Line I will suggest adding more contents, such as the statistical significance, the time-sequence changes in allergenic pollen and their linkages with meteorological factors. 

Also the figure abstract is a little blurry

 

Materials and Methods

Line 93-99 Please simplify these sentences to make it clear and easy for readers.

Line 103-104 This sentence is odd

Line 118-119 Simplify these sentences

Line 143-149 Please make it clear which site of hospital you choose to use the pollen data, and the surrounding vegetation components for each of them. 

 

Results and Discussion

Line 251-255 Simplify these sentences, it’s hard to get your point.

Line 256-267 It will be better to add  the value of the allergenic taxa in the pie chart, do you mean the percentage of concentration? If it is the latter, why the unit is %?

Line 281-286, and line 292-293: Zoom in the number and text in these figures.

Line 301-302 Please add the main meteorological factors that drive the concentration, and explain them.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

 

Status and trend of the main allergenic pollen grains in the city of Rome

Alessandro Di Menno di Bucchianico et al.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It’s important to know what the synergistic effect of allergens present in pollen grains and atmospheric pollution on human health is. Alessandro et al. conducted aerobiological studies in Rome, which describes the status and trend of the main allergenic taxa present in the years from 2003 to 2019. This work is beneficial for our knowledge on the main allergenic species and their diffusion on the urban area of Rome, hence for predicting and protecting allergic symptoms. However there are some issues that need to be fixed. Most of the sentences are complex, sometimes very odd. I will suggest shortening some of them and make them friendly to wider readers. There are too much word explaining the SK test and the main allergenic pollen taxa. And it will be better to add a section to explain what factors and how these factors affecting the pollen trends in Rome.  

Thank you for the suggestions, we tried to simplify, shorten and rewrite the redundant and unclear parts of the text.

 

Other suggestions

Abstract

Remove the refs in this section

Comment accepted: references moved to the introduction (please see the uploaded file).

Line 19 replace the word “zero”

Comment accepted: text has been corrected (please see the uploaded file).

Line I will suggest adding more contents, such as the statistical significance, the time-sequence changes in allergenic pollen and their linkages with meteorological factors. 

Also the figure abstract is a little blurry

Comment accepted: graphical abstract has been improved.

Materials and Methods

Line 93-99 Please simplify these sentences to make it clear and easy for readers.

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Line 103-104 This sentence is odd

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Line 118-119 Simplify these sentences

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Line 143-149 Please make it clear which site of hospital you choose to use the pollen data, and the surrounding vegetation components for each of them. 

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

 

Results and Discussion

Line 251-255 Simplify these sentences, it’s hard to get your point.

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Line 256-267 It will be better to add the value of the allergenic taxa in the pie chart, do you mean the percentage of concentration? If it is the latter, why the unit is %?

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Line 281-286, and line 292-293: Zoom in the number and text in these figures.

Comment accepted: the body text in the figures has been increased.

Line 301-302 Please add the main meteorological factors that drive the concentration, and explain them.

Comment accepted: text has been revisited.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your edit.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1, Round 2)

Status and trend of the main allergenic pollen grains in the city of Rome

Alessandro Di Menno di Bucchianico et al.

 Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? (Can be improved)

The text has been extensively revised and reorganized to improve its expository coherence (please see the uploaded file).

  

Is the article adequately referenced? (Can be improved)

Four references have been added in different paragraphs of the article and the parts of the text that did not find clear references have been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

Line 44. "Pollinosis is a phenomenon that affects about five million Italians today". This phrase needs a reference.

Line 50, remove double “.”

Line 52, remove double “,”

Lines 51-54. This paragraph needs references supporting these previous results.

Lines 55-58. The goals of this study should be presented at the end of the introduction chapter.

Line 73. Substitute “pollens” by “pollen” or “pollen grains”

 

Material and methods,

Authors describe first the statistical analysis applied to the data, however, it is important to present first the studied area, the monitoring  method, and, at the end, the data management and statistic. However, if authors prefer to present it in this order, I assume that it has been their decision.

In my opinion, I think that it is not necessary to describe the Mann-Kendall analysis, in a scientific paper it is not necessary to describe the applied analysis, only mentioning what analysis has been used. However, if authors prefer to present it, I assume that it has been their decision.

In the site description, authos present two sites, only in one of them present the station code, only in the another site present what instrument has been in use. Please, complete the information for both in the same way.

In instrumental description, authors should present that today a norm exit for Hirst type spore trap sampler monitoring: EN 16868:2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5f1349aa-f4cc-430a-978e-3044737e3f28/en-16868-2019.

In my opinion, the subchapter on Main allergenic pollen taxa in central Italy should be removed. It is not material, neither method, it is only a presentation of the main allergenic pollen. Authors can summarize this information for presenting in introduction the importance to study these pollen grains and Alternaria spore.

The authors must defined how the pollen/spore season has been defined, it is very important in aerobiological studies.

 

Result and discussion

Line 240. Remove double “of the”

Line 285. The atmospheric stability variation is not represented in table 2.

Authors have present both, results and discussion in the same chapter, however, in the subchapter: 3.1. Pollen time series in Rome, they only present results; in the subchapter: 3.2. Pollen trends in Rome, they only present one reference.

In this paper there is a lack of discussion, authors should include an additional chapter on discussion.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions should be presented in a clear and concise way, and based on results of this study. Most information in this chapter is not related to these results, but on a background of these studies or discussion, but without any reference. This chapter should be rewritten.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2, Round 2)

 

Status and trend of the main allergenic pollen grains in the city of Rome

Alessandro Di Menno di Bucchianico et al.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Line 44. "Pollinosis is a phenomenon that affects about five million Italians today". This phrase needs a reference.

Comment accepted: Text changed and two references included.

Line 50, remove double “.”

Removed.

Line 52, remove double “,”

Removed.

Lines 51-54. This paragraph needs references supporting these previous results.

            Comment accepted: Text changed

Lines 55-58. The goals of this study should be presented at the end of the introduction chapter.

Comment accepted: Text moved to end of paragraph.

Line 73. Substitute “pollens” by “pollen” or “pollen grains”

Corrected.

Material and methods,

Authors describe first the statistical analysis applied to the data, however, it is important to present first the studied area, the monitoring method, and, at the end, the data management and statistic. However, if authors prefer to present it in this order, I assume that it has been their decision.

We believe it is important to start from the method to get to the particular case of its application. Thanks for understanding.

In my opinion, I think that it is not necessary to describe the Mann-Kendall analysis, in a scientific paper it is not necessary to describe the applied analysis, only mentioning what analysis has been used. However, if authors prefer to present it, I assume that it has been their decision.

We have revised and reduced the mentioned part, anyway we believe that this description may be useful in this form. Thanks for understanding.

In the site description, authos present two sites, only in one of them present the station code, only in the another site present what instrument has been in use. Please, complete the information for both in the same way.

It seems to us that the codes of the two stations (RM5 and RM6) have been mentioned in paragraph 2.1 (Site description). (please see the uploaded file).

In instrumental description, authors should present that today a norm exit for Hirst type spore trap sampler monitoring: EN 16868:2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5f1349aa-f4cc-430a-978e-3044737e3f28/en-16868-2019.

The EN 16868:2019 was cited among the bibliographical references of the paragraph. Now the reference has been made more explicit in the text.

In my opinion, the subchapter on Main allergenic pollen taxa in central Italy should be removed. It is not material, neither method, it is only a presentation of the main allergenic pollen. Authors can summarize this information for presenting in introduction the importance to study these pollen grains and Alternaria spore.

Comment accepted: we have revised and reduced the Botanical paragraph and moved it after the intro part of M&M.

The authors must defined how the pollen/spore season has been defined, it is very important in aerobiological studies.

Comment accepted: Text changed

 

Result and discussion

Line 240. Remove double “of the”

Comment accepted: text has been expanded with definitions and discussion of the criteria for calculating the pollen season (please see the uploaded file).

Line 285. The atmospheric stability variation is not represented in table 2.

It was only a theoretical consideration, now better explained in the text, of the reason for a greater correlation between some taxa

Authors have present both, results and discussion in the same chapter, however, in the subchapter: 3.1. Pollen time series in Rome, they only present results; in the subchapter: 3.2. Pollen trends in Rome, they only present one reference.

Comment partially accepted: It was preferred to discuss the results as they were presented like other scientific papers. Thanks for understanding.

Anyway paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 have been modified and expanded and four references added (originally p. 3.2 had two references, two more have now been added.

In this paper there is a lack of discussion, authors should include an additional chapter on discussion.

Discussion has been expanded taking care to avoid speculations not based on observations.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions should be presented in a clear and concise way, and based on results of this study. Most information in this chapter is not related to these results, but on a background of these studies or discussion, but without any reference. This chapter should be rewritten.

 

Comment accepted: the text was revised following the indications received.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf