Analysis of PM10 Substances via Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making and Statistical Evaluation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the re-submitted manuscript of the article "Analysis of PM10 Substances via Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making and Statistical Evaluation", the authors made many corrections and additions, taking into account some of my comments and probably also the comments of other reviewers. Some terminological problems have also been removed, although unfortunately not all of them.
For example, the definition of particulate matters (PM) also includes liquid particles. This type of general and simplified definition is unfortunately repeated on many websites, including the official websites of some environmental agencies (e.g. US EPA or EEA). Theoretically, such a definition could be considered justified by citing some reliable source. With this definition, however, PM should also include condensed water, i.e. not only moisture adsorbed on small suspended dust particles, but also tiny water drops occurring in the atmospheric air (in the form of clouds or fog). Meanwhile, the reference measurement techniques used to measure PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 (gravimetric method, in the EU implemented in accordance with the EN 12341:2014 standard norm) and other techniques considered equivalent to the reference method generally do not include water droplets in the mass of measured particles, which are not retained on measuring filters or mostly evaporate in the process of conditioning the filters or the tested air sample.
It is difficult to fight against the simplified definition of PM, which has been reproduced on hundreds of websites and thousands of articles, but I am most satisfied with the definition given in, among others, website https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health:
"Airborne particulate matter (PM) is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings" .
In this definition, PM, in addition to mixture of solids, includes not single liquid drops, but aerosols, i.e. a mixture of "small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings".
I leave it to the authors to decide on the level of detail in the approach to this definition. However, it seems that the revised definition of PM quoted in the Introduction section requires further correction, as it excludes solid particles with aerodynamic diameters larger than 10 μm, which are also included in PM. The phrase "... particles (...) with advective diameters between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM10 - coarse particles)" also suggests that PM10 means the range of particle dimensions from 2.5 to 10 μm, whereas it covers particles with dimensions from 0 to 10 μm, i.e. in brackets there should be the marking: "(PM2.5-10 - coarse particles)".
Unfortunately, the type of air quality monitoring station from which the measurement data was used has not yet been provided. The photo of Kocaeli air quality monitoring station in Figure 3 suggests that it is probably a background station (urban, suburban or rural). If such a detailed classification (in terms of type and area) is not used in Turkey, it would be useful to provide at least the type of this station in accordance with the categories quoted (urban, traffic, industrial or rural).
As for the remaining elements of the work, I have no major comments, although the new Section 4 (Discussion) could be more extended and refined, and Section 5 (Conclusions) could be slightly shortened and written more concisely, paying attention to the most important conclusions arising from this work.
Author Response
REWIEVER-1
For example, the definition of particulate matters (PM) also includes liquid particles. This type of general and simplified definition is unfortunately repeated on many websites, including the official websites of some environmental agencies (e.g. US EPA or EEA). Theoretically, such a definition could be considered justified by citing some reliable source. With this definition, however, PM should also include condensed water, i.e. not only moisture adsorbed on small suspended dust particles, but also tiny water drops occurring in the atmospheric air (in the form of clouds or fog). Meanwhile, the reference measurement techniques used to measure PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 (gravimetric method, in the EU implemented in accordance with the EN 12341:2014 standard norm) and other techniques considered equivalent to the reference method generally do not include water droplets in the mass of measured particles, which are not retained on measuring filters or mostly evaporate in the process of conditioning the filters or the tested air sample.
It is difficult to fight against the simplified definition of PM, which has been reproduced on hundreds of websites and thousands of articles, but I am most satisfied with the definition given in, among others, website https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health:
"Airborne particulate matter (PM) is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings" .
In this definition, PM, in addition to mixture of solids, includes not single liquid drops, but aerosols, i.e. a mixture of "small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings".
I leave it to the authors to decide on the level of detail in the approach to this definition. However, it seems that the revised definition of PM quoted in the Introduction section requires further correction, as it excludes solid particles with aerodynamic diameters larger than 10 μm, which are also included in PM. The phrase "... particles (...) with advective diameters between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM10 - coarse particles)" also suggests that PM10 means the range of particle dimensions from 2.5 to 10 μm, whereas it covers particles with dimensions from 0 to 10 μm, i.e. in brackets there should be the marking: "(PM2.5-10 - coarse particles)".
---The definition in the source you suggested for the definition of PM has been added. To avoid repetition, the following statement has been removed from the article.
Airborne PM is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings [3].
PM10 is used to refer to coarse respirable particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 μm, and PM2.5 is used to refer to fine respirable particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm [3].
---The statement "between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM10 – coarse particles)" in the abstract section has been corrected as "between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM2.5-10 – coarse particles)".
Unfortunately, the type of air quality monitoring station from which the measurement data was used has not yet been provided. The photo of Kocaeli air quality monitoring station in Figure 3 suggests that it is probably a background station (urban, suburban or rural). If such a detailed classification (in terms of type and area) is not used in Turkey, it would be useful to provide at least the type of this station in accordance with the categories quoted (urban, traffic, industrial or rural).
--- The following statement has been added for Figure 3:
The station in Figure 3 is an urban type of station.
As for the remaining elements of the work, I have no major comments, although the new Section 4 (Discussion) could be more extended and refined, and Section 5 (Conclusions) could be slightly shortened and written more concisely, paying attention to the most important conclusions arising from this work.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
REWIEVER-2
Introduction: Redundancy issue. Streamline the introduction by combining similar findings from different studies into concise sentences or paragraphs. Improve readability.
---In the introduction section, a concise and explanatory paragraph has been added by combining the studies examined in the literature.
“In these studies on PM10 concentration values, the relationships between pollutants and pollutant factors are examined (11, 12, 15-20), while in some studies, the success of the methods used in the estimation of pollutants is examined (13,14).”
Replace "limit values" with "guidelines" when referring to WHO AQG values (Line 63).
--- “Guidelines” are written instead of the limit values ​​statement in the relevant line. Additionally, this change has been made throughout the study. The areas where changes are made are colored.
“The guidelines set by the WHO for the PM10 pollutant is on average 15 μm/m3 (daily) and 5 μm/m3 (annual). The guidelines for PM10 pollutants have been determined for Türkiye at the national level. The guidelines determined for PM10 pollutants in Türkiye cover the same values in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Figures and Tables: Provide more detailed captions for all figures and tables to enhance understanding.
---The explanations of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 have been detailed. The areas where changes are made are colored.
Rephrase the unclear sentence (Line 93-94): "To assess the practical significance of parameters, the effect size method was employed. Relative humidity emerged as the most effective parameter based on correlation coefficient calculations."
--- The unclear sentence has been corrected and colored.
Ensure all acronyms are defined before their first use.
---All acronyms have been defined before their first use. For this purpose, some changes have been made in the abstr and introduction section. The areas where changes have been made are colored.
Include a new section or paragraph outlining the study's hypothesis and limitations.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
Express PM10 mass concentration in µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Correct typos throughout the manuscript (µg/m3 instead of µm/m3).
---Spelling errors related to mass concentration throughout the article have been corrected as “µg/m3”. The areas where changes have been made are colored.
Section 2.1: Maintain consistency in numerical values by using one or two decimal places (Lines 226-246). Ensure all numerical values include units.
---For Table 3 in Section 2.1, two decimal places have been used throughout the table, with areas where changes have been colored. Throughout the article, there are parts where 2 (for Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table A2), 3 (for Table 13, Table 14 Table A1, Table 16) and 4 (for Table 9, Table 12) decimal places must be used to represent different precision values. Taking your evaluation into account, all tables have been standardized within themselves in terms of decimal units.
Expand on how the criteria affecting PM10 concentration were chosen through literature evaluation and how expert opinions were incorporated into the weighting process using IF-AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process).
---The following statement has been removed:
In this study, the criteria affecting PM10 concentration values ​​determined by literature evaluation are weighted with IF-AHP by taking expert opinion.
The following statement has been added:
In this study, the selection of some criteria affecting PM10 concentration values ​​is made by "brainstorming" method by decision makers who evaluated the literature. For this purpose, the scale that will be detailed in the next section is used. Decision makers are asked to compare the evaluation criteria pairwise and IF-AHP algorithm is included in the process. It is aimed to obtain criterion weights for each criterion at the end of the IF-AHP process steps.
Tables 4 and 5: Provide more detailed descriptions for better understanding.
---The following statement has been added for Table 4:
In the decision-making process, evaluation criteria are analyzed by decision makers by pairwise comparison. For this purpose, in the normal AHP method, the criteria are compared with each other in pairs based on the "Comparison Preference" and "AHP Preference Correspondence" columns in Table 4. Inverse reciprocals are expressed as fractions. In the IF-AHP method, pairwise comparison of evaluation criteria is made with triangular and opposite triangular intuitive fuzzy number logic. The equivalents of the AHP comparison scale in IF-AHP are also included in Table 4. As stated in Sec-tion 2.1, each decision maker subjects each evaluation criterion to a pairwise comparison.
---The following statement has been added for Table 5:
The aim is to include different levels of expertise in the decision-making process. The importance levels of the decision makers in the decision-making group in the process are determined according to the linguistic variables and their equivalents in Table 5.
Section 3.1: Detail the steps involved in obtaining weights for the DM group and final criteria weights. This valuable process should be thoroughly described for future research.
--- In Section 3.1, the following expression has been added for the process of obtaining the weights of the DM group, the added expression is colored.
Triangular intuitive fuzzy number equivalents according to the linguistic variables determined for the DM group are given in Table 9. While calculating λk (Weights) in Table 9, Equation (1) in Step 3 of IF-AHP is used.
The IF-AHP method used to obtain the final criterion weights have been detailed for the findings. All added fields have been colored from Table 9 until the end of the Section 3.1.
Consider moving Tables 13 and 16 to the Supplementary Materials section.
--- Table 13 and Table 16 have been moved to the Appendix Section as Table A1 and Table A2, respectively.
Strengthen the discussion section by providing a more in-depth analysis and addressing the limitations of the study.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
Carefully review the manuscript for any remaining technological mistakes or inconsistencies in the flow between subsections.
---The entire article has been examined in detail and technological mistakes and inconsistencies are resolved. The parts that have been corrected and/or added to the overall article are highlighted in blue.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the results. Currently, the data interpretation lacks analysis and goes beyond simply stating its value. The Authors must carry out many actions to improve the document. As a result, I believe that the data presented are valuable but a major revision of the relevant discussion is needed for this paper to merit publication in Sustainability.
Introduction: Redundancy issue. Streamline the introduction by combining similar findings from different studies into concise sentences or paragraphs. Improve readability.
Replace "limit values" with "guidelines" when referring to WHO AQG values (Line 63).
Figures and Tables: Provide more detailed captions for all figures and tables to enhance understanding.
Rephrase the unclear sentence (Line 93-94): "To assess the practical significance of parameters, the effect size method was employed. Relative humidity emerged as the most effective parameter based on correlation coefficient calculations."
Ensure all acronyms are defined before their first use.
Include a new section or paragraph outlining the study's hypothesis and limitations.
Express PM10 mass concentration in µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Correct typos throughout the manuscript (µg/m3 instead of µm/m3).
Section 2.1: Maintain consistency in numerical values by using one or two decimal places (Lines 226-246). Ensure all numerical values include units.
Expand on how the criteria affecting PM10 concentration were chosen through literature evaluation and how expert opinions were incorporated into the weighting process using IF-AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process).
Tables 4 and 5: Provide more detailed descriptions for better understanding.
Section 3.1: Detail the steps involved in obtaining weights for the DM group and final criteria weights. This valuable process should be thoroughly described for future research.
Consider moving Tables 13 and 16 to the Supplementary Materials section.
Strengthen the discussion section by providing a more in-depth analysis and addressing the limitations of the study.
Carefully review the manuscript for any remaining technological mistakes or inconsistencies in the flow between subsections.
Author Response
REWIEVER-1
For example, the definition of particulate matters (PM) also includes liquid particles. This type of general and simplified definition is unfortunately repeated on many websites, including the official websites of some environmental agencies (e.g. US EPA or EEA). Theoretically, such a definition could be considered justified by citing some reliable source. With this definition, however, PM should also include condensed water, i.e. not only moisture adsorbed on small suspended dust particles, but also tiny water drops occurring in the atmospheric air (in the form of clouds or fog). Meanwhile, the reference measurement techniques used to measure PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 (gravimetric method, in the EU implemented in accordance with the EN 12341:2014 standard norm) and other techniques considered equivalent to the reference method generally do not include water droplets in the mass of measured particles, which are not retained on measuring filters or mostly evaporate in the process of conditioning the filters or the tested air sample.
It is difficult to fight against the simplified definition of PM, which has been reproduced on hundreds of websites and thousands of articles, but I am most satisfied with the definition given in, among others, website https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health:
"Airborne particulate matter (PM) is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings" .
In this definition, PM, in addition to mixture of solids, includes not single liquid drops, but aerosols, i.e. a mixture of "small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings".
I leave it to the authors to decide on the level of detail in the approach to this definition. However, it seems that the revised definition of PM quoted in the Introduction section requires further correction, as it excludes solid particles with aerodynamic diameters larger than 10 μm, which are also included in PM. The phrase "... particles (...) with advective diameters between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM10 - coarse particles)" also suggests that PM10 means the range of particle dimensions from 2.5 to 10 μm, whereas it covers particles with dimensions from 0 to 10 μm, i.e. in brackets there should be the marking: "(PM2.5-10 - coarse particles)".
---The definition in the source you suggested for the definition of PM has been added. To avoid repetition, the following statement has been removed from the article.
Airborne PM is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings [3].
PM10 is used to refer to coarse respirable particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 μm, and PM2.5 is used to refer to fine respirable particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm [3].
---The statement "between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM10 – coarse particles)" in the abstract section has been corrected as "between 2.5 and 10 μm (PM2.5-10 – coarse particles)".
Unfortunately, the type of air quality monitoring station from which the measurement data was used has not yet been provided. The photo of Kocaeli air quality monitoring station in Figure 3 suggests that it is probably a background station (urban, suburban or rural). If such a detailed classification (in terms of type and area) is not used in Turkey, it would be useful to provide at least the type of this station in accordance with the categories quoted (urban, traffic, industrial or rural).
--- The following statement has been added for Figure 3:
The station in Figure 3 is an urban type of station.
As for the remaining elements of the work, I have no major comments, although the new Section 4 (Discussion) could be more extended and refined, and Section 5 (Conclusions) could be slightly shortened and written more concisely, paying attention to the most important conclusions arising from this work.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
REWIEVER-2
Introduction: Redundancy issue. Streamline the introduction by combining similar findings from different studies into concise sentences or paragraphs. Improve readability.
---In the introduction section, a concise and explanatory paragraph has been added by combining the studies examined in the literature.
“In these studies on PM10 concentration values, the relationships between pollutants and pollutant factors are examined (11, 12, 15-20), while in some studies, the success of the methods used in the estimation of pollutants is examined (13,14).”
Replace "limit values" with "guidelines" when referring to WHO AQG values (Line 63).
--- “Guidelines” are written instead of the limit values ​​statement in the relevant line. Additionally, this change has been made throughout the study. The areas where changes are made are colored.
“The guidelines set by the WHO for the PM10 pollutant is on average 15 μm/m3 (daily) and 5 μm/m3 (annual). The guidelines for PM10 pollutants have been determined for Türkiye at the national level. The guidelines determined for PM10 pollutants in Türkiye cover the same values in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Figures and Tables: Provide more detailed captions for all figures and tables to enhance understanding.
---The explanations of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 have been detailed. The areas where changes are made are colored.
Rephrase the unclear sentence (Line 93-94): "To assess the practical significance of parameters, the effect size method was employed. Relative humidity emerged as the most effective parameter based on correlation coefficient calculations."
--- The unclear sentence has been corrected and colored.
Ensure all acronyms are defined before their first use.
---All acronyms have been defined before their first use. For this purpose, some changes have been made in the abstr and introduction section. The areas where changes have been made are colored.
Include a new section or paragraph outlining the study's hypothesis and limitations.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
Express PM10 mass concentration in µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). Correct typos throughout the manuscript (µg/m3 instead of µm/m3).
---Spelling errors related to mass concentration throughout the article have been corrected as “µg/m3”. The areas where changes have been made are colored.
Section 2.1: Maintain consistency in numerical values by using one or two decimal places (Lines 226-246). Ensure all numerical values include units.
---For Table 3 in Section 2.1, two decimal places have been used throughout the table, with areas where changes have been colored. Throughout the article, there are parts where 2 (for Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table A2), 3 (for Table 13, Table 14 Table A1, Table 16) and 4 (for Table 9, Table 12) decimal places must be used to represent different precision values. Taking your evaluation into account, all tables have been standardized within themselves in terms of decimal units.
Expand on how the criteria affecting PM10 concentration were chosen through literature evaluation and how expert opinions were incorporated into the weighting process using IF-AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process).
---The following statement has been removed:
In this study, the criteria affecting PM10 concentration values ​​determined by literature evaluation are weighted with IF-AHP by taking expert opinion.
The following statement has been added:
In this study, the selection of some criteria affecting PM10 concentration values ​​is made by "brainstorming" method by decision makers who evaluated the literature. For this purpose, the scale that will be detailed in the next section is used. Decision makers are asked to compare the evaluation criteria pairwise and IF-AHP algorithm is included in the process. It is aimed to obtain criterion weights for each criterion at the end of the IF-AHP process steps.
Tables 4 and 5: Provide more detailed descriptions for better understanding.
---The following statement has been added for Table 4:
In the decision-making process, evaluation criteria are analyzed by decision makers by pairwise comparison. For this purpose, in the normal AHP method, the criteria are compared with each other in pairs based on the "Comparison Preference" and "AHP Preference Correspondence" columns in Table 4. Inverse reciprocals are expressed as fractions. In the IF-AHP method, pairwise comparison of evaluation criteria is made with triangular and opposite triangular intuitive fuzzy number logic. The equivalents of the AHP comparison scale in IF-AHP are also included in Table 4. As stated in Sec-tion 2.1, each decision maker subjects each evaluation criterion to a pairwise comparison.
---The following statement has been added for Table 5:
The aim is to include different levels of expertise in the decision-making process. The importance levels of the decision makers in the decision-making group in the process are determined according to the linguistic variables and their equivalents in Table 5.
Section 3.1: Detail the steps involved in obtaining weights for the DM group and final criteria weights. This valuable process should be thoroughly described for future research.
--- In Section 3.1, the following expression has been added for the process of obtaining the weights of the DM group, the added expression is colored.
Triangular intuitive fuzzy number equivalents according to the linguistic variables determined for the DM group are given in Table 9. While calculating λk (Weights) in Table 9, Equation (1) in Step 3 of IF-AHP is used.
The IF-AHP method used to obtain the final criterion weights have been detailed for the findings. All added fields have been colored from Table 9 until the end of the Section 3.1.
Consider moving Tables 13 and 16 to the Supplementary Materials section.
--- Table 13 and Table 16 have been moved to the Appendix Section as Table A1 and Table A2, respectively.
Strengthen the discussion section by providing a more in-depth analysis and addressing the limitations of the study.
--- The following statement has been added for Discussion Section:
Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. In the study that hybridizes the statistical process and the intuitive fuzzy decision-making process, the interpreta-tions that can be made may vary if the decision-making group itself or the decision maker's judgments change. In this context, the structure of the decision problem and the status of the measures to be taken should be taken into consideration. The comments made on the Covid 19 pandemic and the criteria weighting process to be used are also open to different methodologies. When considered in terms of statistical anal-ysis, the success of different forecasting methods can be examined. This study is planned for Kocaeli province in the Marmara Region of Türkiye. Decision process and statistical process analyzes in different countries or regions may yield different results.
Carefully review the manuscript for any remaining technological mistakes or inconsistencies in the flow between subsections.
---The entire article has been examined in detail and technological mistakes and inconsistencies are resolved. The parts that have been corrected and/or added to the overall article are highlighted in blue.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research work shown in this article is interesting and well-founded. The paper has been revised rigorously and I think the authors’ responses may satisfy almost all the reviewers’ comments. As such, the reviewer recommends that this paper be considered for this journal.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments on the manuscript entitled “Analysis of PM10 Substances via Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making and Statistical Evaluation”
This study tried to identify the important causes of PM10 emission based on monthly average PM10 data between 2019-2023 obtained from the Air Monitoring Station in Kocaeli. Statistical analysis methods, including the Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP (IF-AHP), One-way ANOVA and Games-Howell test, were applied to get some results. Statistical analysis must be based on a large number of data, and the statistical results are meaningful. However, there are only 12 data each year and 60 data in total. The amount of data is far from the amount required by a scientific paper. Thus, my recommendation is “Reject”.
Specific comments：
1) Table 1, Line 73. In 2021, WHO released new Global Air Quality Guidelines (AQG 2021), adjusting the average annual target value of PM2.5 from 10 μg/m3 to 5 μg/m3 and the average daily target value to 15μg/m3;
2) Table 9, Line 370-371, the final weights from C3 to C7 were similar.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English writing is genearally fine.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract and introduction give basic details for example PM10 and its defination .Also PM limits can summerized
No need to talk about NOx and other pollution parameters.
Step 6 is stated twice in the text. The criteria affecting PM10 concentration need justifications as it depend on the locality surrounding.
Also the final weights is very much confusing according to my X experience with the locations they should reordered.
finally the data set used can not provide concrete conclusion as the method depend on data hemogenty and this require same pattern of PM10 through years.I have concern about the number of data set used in the study while using fuzzy approach
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed manuscript is an attempt to apply the Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP (IF-AHP) method and the decision-making model to the analysis of air quality data based on monitoring data on PM10 concentrations in the air in Kocaeli (Türkiye) in 2019-2023. I have many comments on it, listed below, which do not allow me to give a positive opinion about this work.
Major comments:
The Abstract should be more specific and improved in its essence. In its initial part, it contains commonly known facts and too general or partially erroneous statements. In the sentence "Particulate matter is a harmful substance that harms the health of humans and other living things, causes air pollution, increases radiation, and negatively affects cloud formation", the references to "radiation" and "cloud formation" at the end of it are imprecise and incomprehensible. The definition of "Particulate matter" given in lines 13-14 is highly controversial. Particulate matter suspended in the air does not include "liquid droplets". These are actually "solid particles", but not only of "extremely small" sizes. In the sentence "Many criteria affect PM10 density and changes in density" (line 16), did the authors really mean PM10 density or rather PM10 concentration? In the sentence "Many criteria affect PM10 density and changes in density" (line 16), did the authors really mean PM10 density or rather PM10 concentration in the air? In the sentence "obtaining the important causes of PM10 emission in terms of danger and focusing on these causes" (lines 24-25) did you really mean PM10 emission or PM10 concentration in the air?
The review of literature in a similar field made in the Section 1 (Introduction) is very superficial, even though there are many previous works in a similar field (e.g. using statistical methods to analyze the variability of air pollutant concentrations recorded at air quality monitoring stations), including those published in Sustainability.
The Introduction section does not explain the reason for using the "Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP" method in this work. Is filling the gap in research in this area the only justification?
The flowchart of study process (Figure 1) should be commented at least in a general way.
The air quality monitoring system from which the data was used should be generally characterized in terms of the measurement methods used to measure individual substances (at least PM10), as well as the type of measurement stations.
The nitrogen oxides listed in parentheses on line 163 are not "nitrogenides".
The first criterion affecting PM10 concentration values were "Climatic Features", understood as "meteorological conditions" (and this is the correct name). As the authors themselves noted, some of them may have a positive and some negative impact on the level of PM10 in the air. Why were all meteorological conditions lumped together? Generally, the mentioned meteorological factors include those that are of great importance for air quality (temperature, wind speed) and those whose importance is usually less important from the point of view of PM10 (humidity, atmospheric pressure). However, important factors such as the mixing-layer height and wind direction were omitted.
In the description of the adopted criteria affecting PM10 concentration values, there are references to effects unrelated to air quality. What was the purpose of this approach?
The calculated weights given in Table 8 (Weights of decision-makers for decision process) should be better justified.
At the end of Section 1 it is stated that "the fourth phase contains discussion and conclusions". Meanwhile, Section 4 contains and should contain only conclusions. Discussion of the results should come earlier (in Section 3 or in a separate section). This work generally lacks scientific discussion, including references to the works of other authors that may provide a critical response to the obtained results.
The title of Section 4 ("CONCLUSION") should be changed to "Conclusions". In the "Conclusions" section, the work should be summarized and the most important conclusions resulting from the obtained results should be listed. At the end of this section, it is worth specifying the limitations or further direction of development of the analyzed method in analogous applications.
Minor comments:
The numbers of oxygen atoms (2 or 3) used in the abbreviations of chemical compounds such as "SO2", "NO2" or "O3" should be placed in a subscript. In fact, in the abbreviations "PM10" and "PM2.5", the numbers "10" and "2.5" are often also placed in a subscript.
In the title of Section 2.1, remove the unnecessary period before the word "Study".
There should be no dot in the phrase "k. decision maker" (line 238).
The reference to the work (Abdullah and Najib, 2014) in line 251 should be adapted to the citation style used.
Instead of the abbreviation "Eq." the full name "Equation" should be used (similar to Figure or Table).
Abbreviation "Fig." it should also be replaced with the full name "Figure" (line 348).
Abbreviation "Sig." (in "Sig. (p) value" or "Sig. value" ) (significance level?) is not generally known and should be explained upon first use.
Graphics inserted into Table 7 should be converted into text.
The first two sentences given on lines 351-353 should be edited as one sentence. The first two sentences given on lines 361-362 should be edited as one sentence. "DM..." elements may be listed under the colon. Before the semicolon ";" no spaces should be inserted. The initial word in line 361 ("The") and 406 ("According") is written in a larger font compared to the remaining text.
The data given in Table 13 with the zero before the decimal place separator omitted should be supplemented with the missing value "0". There should be no dot after the "*" symbol under Table 13.
The style of the References section is not uniform and should be adapted to the guidelines for Authors in this respect.
