Air Pollution, Physical Exercise, and Physical Health: An Analysis Based on Data from the China General Social Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fawei Li et al. aim to investigate the influence of air pollution and physical exercise on residents' health using data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS) 2018. The results are interesting and could lead to relevant governmental applications. Here are some improvements that you may want to consider: 

- The abstract is specific and well-written, it encourages you to read the study.

- It is necessary to reference the first paragraph of the introduction.

- The sections devoted to physical activity and methods are well referenced and well laid out. 

- The same applies to the results section, very well supported by the table provided.

- The discussion, on the other hand, could be developed more precisely and should be referenced.

- Consider the possibility of dividing section 6 into two sections.

Improving this would enhance the quality of the work, even so it is an article worked quite well by the authors.

Author Response

Comments 1: Consider the possibility of dividing section 6 into two sections.

Response 1: We have streamlined Section 6, details on page 14, Section 6.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID 2984678

Air Pollution, Physical Exercise, and Physical Health: Empirical Evidence from China

 

The  aimed to investigate the influence of air pollution and physical exercise on residents' health using data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) 2018.The research is based on the Grossman Health Production Function and employs the Ordered Logit Model to analyze the relationship between air pollution, physical exercise, and residents' health.

Kindly address following issues before being considered for publication

 

Abstract

Authors should mention the duration of the study like 2018 to ………Include results in  the abstract.

Manuscript

Section 2 literature review is written. I request authors to incorporate appropriately to  introduction section..

 

Methods

1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should mention separately.  Can be little more elaborative..

2. How the sample size determined?

3. Separate statistics section can be included end of the methods section

4. In that authors can mention about the software they used and various statistics used inthei study.

Results

1. Authors should mention the demographic characteristics in table 1 such as Gender, Age in various categories, etc

2. Table 1

Authors should make the separate column for these variables. 1=Very unhealthy

(3.64%)；2=Somewhat unhealthy (15.01%)；3=Average (23.47%)；4=Somewhat healthy

(39.99%)；5=Very healthy (17.88%).

 It looks like a  paragraph  Same thing for physical exercises and air pollution, gender, community type..

 

3. Table 2

 Abbreviation Obs? Explain

Std. Dev. ? Explain?

 

Discussion section

Discussion section seems very very less and no interpretation with previous researches.

Authors must include more literature survey in this section comparing with the present results.

In the last paragraph talks about conclusion…it should be under conclusion

Conclusion

Very long…………

Can give the most important if you have limitation that can be included under separate section or at the end of the discussion.

Future recommendations
Auhtors can include Future recommendations  if any

 

Best Wishes

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract：Authors should mention the duration of the study like 2018 to ………Include results in  the abstract.

Response 1: We have made appropriate revisions to the abstract, as detailed in the abstract section.

Comments 2: Manuscript Section 2 literature review is written. I request authors to incorporate appropriately to  introduction section.

Response2: We have made appropriate revisions, as detailed in the first and second paragraphs on page two.

Comments 3:

Methods

1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should mention separately.  Can be little more elaborative..
2. How the sample size determined?
3. Separate statistics section can be included end of the methods section
4. In that authors can mention about the software they used and various statistics used inthei study.

Response3：The above suggestions have been incorporated into the modifications on page 5, section 3.1 Data, and page 6, section 3.3 Method.

Comments 4:

Results

1. Authors should mention the demographic characteristics in table 1 such as Gender, Age in various categories, etc
2. Table 1

Authors should make the separate column for these variables. 1=Very unhealthy

(3.64%)；2=Somewhat unhealthy (15.01%)；3=Average (23.47%)；4=Somewhat healthy

(39.99%)；5=Very healthy (17.88%).

 It looks like a  paragraph  Same thing for physical exercises and air pollution, gender, community type..

3. Table 2  Abbreviation Obs? Explain    Dev. ? Explain?

 

Response4：

Results

1.the suggestions you provided have been implemented and improved upon

2."To save space, we have adopted the layout of Table 1 as it is. Can we refrain from modifying this table?"

3.In Table 2, "Obs" and "Std. Dev" are automatically output by Stata software, representing the number of observations and the standard deviation, respectively.

Comments 5:

Discussion section

Discussion section seems very very less and no interpretation with previous researches.

Authors must include more literature survey in this section comparing with the present results.

In the last paragraph talks about conclusion…it should be under conclusion

Response5：

Discussion section

"In accordance with your suggestions, revisions have been made to the discussion section as well. Please refer to the revised discussion section on page 13 for the implemented changes."

 

Comments 6:

Conclusion

Very long…………

Can give the most important if you have limitation that can be included under separate section or at the end of the discussion.

Future recommendations
Auhtors can include Future recommendations  if any

Response6：

"The conclusion section has also been appropriately revised in accordance with your suggestions. Please see the revised conclusion section on page 14 for details."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Li et al. employed data from the 2018 Chinese General Social Survey and the Grossman Health Production Function to investigate the impacts of air pollution and physical exercise on the health of Chinese adults. The study found that air pollution adversely affects health, whereas physical exercise has a beneficial effect. Using gender-stratified and urban-rural models, the research indicated that men and urban residents experience more severe health effects from air pollution, although physical exercise provides benefits across all groups. These findings underscore the necessity for policy interventions aimed at reducing air pollution and promoting physical activity to enhance public health. The study would benefit from several significant enhancements to strengthen its scholarly contribution:

 

-It might be helpful to revise the title to more accurately reflect that the study is based on survey responses, not direct air pollution data analysis.

-Consider removing the journal's name from the manuscript as it seems unnecessary; also, it would be great if the mortality data could be presented in a more detailed and precise manner.

-You might want to clarify the relevance of the information presented in lines 45-46 to ensure it aligns well with the study's objectives.

 

-It would be useful to specify whether the air pollution examined was indoor or outdoor to avoid any potential confusion.

 

-Improving the description of how invalid survey responses were excluded could help ensure the integrity of the data.

 

-Quantifying air pollution using objective metrics instead of subjective perceptions could reduce bias. Incorporating geographic variables and correlating these with data from local authorities could also enhance the credibility of the findings.

 

-Indicating whether the physical activities were conducted indoors or outdoors would clarify a significant factor that impacts the study results.

 

-Further exploration into the potential for increased respiratory activity during exercise leading to greater exposure to pollutants might provide additional insights into how this could worsen health outcomes.

 

Additionally, the manuscript would gain from:

 

-Enhancing the literature review to support the study's claims within a broader academic discourse. This would not only validate the research findings but also demonstrate a thorough understanding of the subject area, substantially contributing to the field.

 

-Enriching the results section to provide a deeper analysis of the findings. A detailed interpretation and discussion of the results' underlying rationale are crucial for articulating the research's significance and implications.

 

-Discussing the study's limitations in detail would help frame its scope, identify potential biases, and assess the generalizability of the findings. Recognizing these limitations is vital for guiding future research.

-Using boxplot figures for analyzing large datasets, as these better convey data distribution, central tendency, and variability, thereby enhancing the comprehensibility of complex datasets.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It seems like there are no major English errors or editing issues detected in the manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1: It might be helpful to revise the title to more accurately reflect that the study is based on survey responses, not direct air pollution data analysis.

Response 1: The modifications have been made as requested. Please refer to the first page for the revised title of the paper.

 

Comments 2: Consider removing the journal's name from the manuscript as it seems unnecessary; also, it would be great if the mortality data could be presented in a more detailed and precise manner.

Response 2:The journal's name has been removed.

 

Comments 3: You might want to clarify the relevance of the information presented in lines 45-46 to ensure it aligns well with the study's objectives.

Response 3:After careful consideration, I believe your suggestion is excellent. The information presented in lines 45-46 is not closely related to the study objectives, so I have removed that sentence.

 

Comments 4: It would be useful to specify whether the air pollution examined was indoor or outdoor to avoid any potential confusion

Response 4:The air pollution examined was outdoor.

 

Comments 5: Improving the description of how invalid survey responses were excluded could help ensure the integrity of the data.

Response 5:The necessary modifications have been made, please refer to section 3.1data on page 5 for details.

 

Comments 6: Quantifying air pollution using objective metrics instead of subjective perceptions could reduce bias. Incorporating geographic variables and correlating these with data from local authorities could also enhance the credibility of the findings.

Response 6:Thank you very much for your suggestion. In our survey database, the regions only cover provinces. However, objective air pollution data in China is only available at the city level, and combining city-level data into provincial data introduces significant errors. Therefore, in this situation, we believe subjective perception is also a reasonable choice, offering more specificity. As a result, this part has not been modified, and we are unsure if it is acceptable.

 

Comments 7: Indicating whether the physical activities were conducted indoors or outdoors would clarify a significant factor that impacts the study results.

Response 7:Physical activities were conducted outdoors.

 

Comments 8: Further exploration into the potential for increased respiratory activity during exercise leading to greater exposure to pollutants might provide additional insights into how this could worsen health outcomes.

Response 8:See page 13, Discussion section.

 

 

Comments 9:Enhancing the literature review to support the study's claims within a broader academic discourse. This would not only validate the research findings but also demonstrate a thorough understanding of the subject area, substantially contributing to the field.

Response 9:We have added additional literature in both the introduction and discussion sections to further validate the research findings.

 

Comments 10:Enriching the results section to provide a deeper analysis of the findings. A detailed interpretation and discussion of the results' underlying rationale are crucial for articulating the research's significance and implications.

Response 10:Please see page 14, Conclusion section.

 

 

Comments 11:Discussing the study's limitations in detail would help frame its scope, identify potential biases, and assess the generalizability of the findings. Recognizing these limitations is vital for guiding future research.

Response 11:Please refer to page 15, line 566 for more details.

 

 

Comments 12:Using boxplot figures for analyzing large datasets, as these better convey data distribution, central tendency, and variability, thereby enhancing the comprehensibility of complex datasets.

Response 12:Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion on my paper. I highly appreciate your recommendation to use box plots for analyzing large datasets. However, I have chosen to use alternative graphs to present the distribution of the data in my study. I believe that these graphs can effectively showcase my research findings, and I would prefer not to make any modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors made the significant changes during revision

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the feedback has been effectively addressed, resulting in significant improvements to the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is satisfactory; however, some minor revisions are necessary.