Impact of Smoke Plumes Transport on Air Quality in Sydney during Extensive Bushfires (2019) in New South Wales, Australia Using Remote Sensing and Ground Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

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

 

Page 1 Line 14" This study aims to understand the smoke aerosol dispersion and transport patterns, assess the air quality level and atmospheric conditions during extensive bushfires in the Sydney region in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 2019 using air quality and meteorological data in conjunction with satellite remote sensing measurements".

I propose to separate the goals of the study from the methods that are used in it. This means reformulation, for example, in this form: The purpose of this study is to obtain the characteristics of the smoke aerosol and the level of air quality for 2019 under the influence of extensive forest fires in the Sydney area in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were solved: the analysis of air quality and meteorological data in combination with satellite measurements of remote sensing was carried out.

 

A/ I separated the goals of the study from the methods that are used in it as your suggestion.

 

Page 2 line 36 indent needs to be corrected.

It is necessary to correct the line numbering for each page. It should not start from the beginning, but continues.

 

A/ I change numbering to continues.

 

Page 3 line 5: "The considerable decline of solar energy at ground level may be sufficient to change the earth energetic balance (Toll et al., 2015)." incorrect citation (the meaning of the phrase is completely different). The article presents the following information: "The significant decrease of solar energy at the surface may strongly modify the surface energy budget".

 

A/ I corrected the sentence.

 

Page 3 line 12 link to AERONET. Your link is dated 2013, and the network exists much earlier. I suggest, if not changed, then add the link Holben B. N. et al. AERONET to the source indicated by you — A combined instrument network and a data archive for determining the characteristics of aerosols //Remote sensing of the environment. - 1998. – p. 66. – No. 1. – p. 1-16.

 

A/ A/ I added the link Holben B. N. et al.1998 as you suggest.

 

 

Page 3 line 22 "This study aims to examine the dispersion and transport of smoke aerosols (air pollutants) during the NSW bushfires over Sydney and the east coast in 2019 using satellite remote sensing measurements (MODIS Terra/Aqua fire products) in conjunction with meteorological and air quality data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and state authorities in NSW". I suppose you mean not dispersion but absorption. This also applies to the introduction: a smoke aerosol is an absorbing aerosol. The offer is cumbersome. It is better to divide the tasks and methods of their solution into 2 different proposals. And I advise you not to write the word "aim" many times in the article. The aim of the work is one, but there may be several tasks.

 

A/ I have done.

Page 3 line 25 Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) the transcript is already given in the abstract.

 

A/ I corrected it.

 

Page 4 line 9(BOM) the transcript is already given in the abstract.

A/ I corrected it.

 

Page 5 line 2 and line 5: duplication of HYSPLIT decryption. The link must be specified after the first mention of this data source.

 

A/ I corrected it.

 

Figure 2.delete the caption ending in the right picture (at the ocean part of the Earth planet). The signature is duplicated on the map on the right. Better to add a link from site where the images were taken in the caption to the drawings.

 

A/ I deleted the caption ending in the right picture and added a link.

 

Page 6 line 7. The arrival of the smoke plumes. It is better to use the word "transfer".

 

A/ I used the word "transfer".

 

Page 11 line 7 The CALIPSO trajectory close to Australia on 10 December 2019 moves over the east 7 coast of Queensland, New South Weals States and Coral Sea (Fig. 5a). Not figure 5, but 7.

 

A/ I corrected it.

 

In the paper Page 11 line 13 : "The aerosol subtype 6 (black) in Fig.5b shows 13 the existence of smoke aerosols above Oxley Wild Rivers National Park to northern NSW 14 state (A in Fig. 5b)." Point A coordinates correspond to the area in the Pacific Ocean, which is very far from the Oxley Wild River National Park, Australia. Also, if you look at the flight of Calipso, you can see that for this date (December 10, 2019) it was not directly over the territory of the Australian continent. An asterisk in the figure highlights the beginning of the satellite's flight, an oval highlights the area where clouds are shown by aerosol loading, however, as you can see from the picture with a typification for this area, no type of aerosol was identified, therefore, the grounds for the statements described in the article that according to Calipso this is smoke you do not have. If there are doubts, then look at the values of the depolarization coefficients (they correspond to the types of aerosol) and you will see that there are no corresponding values for the selected area that are characteristic of smoke.

 

A/ I select another flight of Calipso, you can see that for this date (December 10, 2019) it was directly over the territory of the Australian continent. The aerosol subtype 6 (black) in Fig.7b shows the existence of smoke aerosols above NSW state…..

 

Figure 8. absolutely unreadable coordinates and legend. The drawing needs to be redone.

 

A/ I redo it.

 

Page 13 line 6 . The region of great elevated aerosol values as suggested via the aerosol optical depth (AOD) is detected above the Tasman Sea...... It is better to reformulate Increased AOD values over (not above).

A/ I change it to over.

 

Discussions and conclusions should be written separately and the essence of these points is different. In the conclusions of the thesis, try to highlight the most basic and the most significant, and a completely different one is brought into the discussion (look at the articles in this journal).

A/ I separated discussions and conclusions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript

"Impact of smoke plumes transport on air quality in Sydney during extensive bushfires (2019) in New South Wales, Australia using remote sensing and ground data"

by Ali A. Attiya and Brian G. Jones submitted to Remote Sensing

The manuscript presents a study of atmospheric properties and aerosol transport during extensive bushfires in New South Wales, Australia in 2019. The authors combine meteorological and environmental data from a number of official ground based monitoring sites with satellite based remote sensing data (CALIPSO, MODIS). Although mentioned in the introduction, ground based lidar data (MPLNET, AERONET) is not directly used in this study. The authors have three main aims: 1) to examine the dispersion and transport of smoke aerosols during the NSW bushfires over Sydney and the east coast in 2019 using satellite remote sensing measurements in conjunction with meteorological and air quality data, 2) to analyse the impact of the huge smoke aerosol loads on air quality in the Sydney region, and 3) to analyse the optical and physical characteristics of the aerosols. I find the topic interesting and suitable for publication in Remote Sensing, however, due to a large number of problems I recommend to reject the manuscript, with the possibility to resubmit it after a thorough rewrite.

Detailed comments and recommendations:

1. Structure, language and consistency of the manuscript

   The manuscript suffers from a large number of typos and language related problems, such as

   Page 1, Line 5: Ali. → Ali

   Page 1, Line 14: and can examine → and can be examined

   Page 1, Line 33: The results of the HYSPLIT model for smoke plumes movement are like to the image of the MODIS satellite. → Backward trajectories obtained from the HYSPLIT model agree well with the movement of the smoke plumes as observed in the MODIS satellite images.

   Page 2, Line 11: atmospheric gases like SO₂ and NO₂ originate during elevated temperatures when bush fuel is completely burned during the blazing stage → In addition to CO₂, gases like SO₂ and NO₂ are also being emitted into the atmosphere during the blazing stage, when bush fuel is completely burned

   Atmospheric gases are N₂, O₂, Ar, CO₂, H₂O (and in small fractions Ne, He, CH4, Kr)

   etc,

   to mention just some, which makes it hard to read and review. Please proofread the manuscript before you submit it.

   Please be consistent using using symbols, abbreviations, etc., for example:

• Chemical symbols particulate matter categories (PM) are now written ad hoc with numbers sometimes in subscript (which is correct) and at other times not (O3, O₂, etc.) make it uniform throughout the paper. As all your PM concentrations are 1 hour averages, then I would suggest that you state it initially and just use PM₁₀ and not PM10-1hr, which just clobbers the text.

• Times and dates are written ad hoc (always use xx:yy UTC, for the date decide on one style and use it everywhere, now there are cases like 10 December 2019, 12/11/2019.

• Names of places are not written consistently (St Marys, ST MARYS...)

Please use paragraphs in sections reasonably to guide the train of thought. In your Discussion and conclusions, practically EVERY SENTENCE is a new paragraph.

There is a lot of unnecessary repetition in the manuscript, such as on Page 5 regarding HYSPLIT,

1. Citations

   Please use the numbered citation style, used in Remote Sensing. Check any of the published papers on the MDPI site.

2. Use of ground-based lidar data

   Although AERONET and MPLNET are mentioned in the abstract and AERONET in page 12, where it is referred to its use in Taiwan, ground based lidar data is not used in this work. Why is that? After a quick look, there are at least 4 AERONET stations close to the area of interest (Aspendale_Mel_AU (38.025S,145.101E), Canberra (35.271S,149.111E), Coleambally (34.810S,146.064E), Fowlers_Gap (31.086S,141.701E)). Ground based lidar data has in many cases proven to be very important, as it can provide better temporal coverage/resolution, high vertical spatial resolution and aerosol identification (in case of multi wavelength Raman lidar devices). If you do use AERONET data then the relevant sites should be shown on the map (Fig. 2).

3. Results

   The section on results has a swarm of details regarding a number of observed values in a number of locations at different times. This is not helpful at all, a table would be in place here.

4. Conclusions

   Please use paragraphs in the conclusions reasonably to guide the train of thought, for example, there could be three paragraphs to discuss each of the set aims (aerosol transport, impact on air quality, aerosol properties). As it is now, it is not evident from the manuscript and in particular its conclusions (there are none, just a discussion) that the authors addressed set aims adequately. The only conclusion a reader can make at this time is that HYSPLIT works well. I am certain that the authors have much more to offer and I encourage them to do so.

Author Response

 

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

 

Page 1, Line 5: Ali. → Ali

 

A/ I correct it.

 

Page 1, Line 14: and can examine → and can be examined.

 

A/ I corrected the sentence.

 

Page 1, Line 33: The results of the HYSPLIT model for smoke plumes movement are like to the image of the MODIS satellite. → Backward trajectories obtained from the HYSPLIT model agree well with the movement of the smoke plumes as observed in the MODIS satellite images.

 

A/ I added the sentence as you suggest.

Page 2, Line 11: atmospheric gases like SO and NO originate during elevated temperatures when bush fuel is completely burned during the blazing stage → In addition to CO, gases like SO and NO are also being emitted into the atmosphere during the blazing stage, when bush fuel is completely burned

A/ I added the sentence as you suggest.

 

Atmospheric gases are N, O, Ar, CO, HO (and in small fractions Ne, He, CH4, Kr) etc,

to mention just some, which makes it hard to read and review. Please proofread the manuscript before you submit it. P lease be consistent using symbols, abbreviations, etc., for example: Chemical symbols particulate matter categories (PM) are now written ad hoc with numbers sometimes in subscript (which is correct) and at other times not (O3, O2, etc.) make it uniform throughout the paper. As all your PM concentrations are 1 hour averages, then I would suggest that you state it initially and just use PM10 and not PM10-1hr, which just clobbers the text.

 

A/ I have gone through the manuscript and correct symbols, abbreviations.

 

Times and dates are written ad hoc (always use xx:yy UTC, for the date decide on one style and use it everywhere, now there are cases like 10 December 2019, 12/11/2019.

 

A/ I corrected it.

 

Names of places are not written consistently (St Marys, ST MARYS...)

 

A/ I corrected it.

Please use paragraphs in sections reasonably to guide the train of thought. In your Discussion and conclusions, practically EVERYSENTENCE is a new paragraph.

A/ I rewrote and separated discussion and conclusions.

 

There is a lot of unnecessary repetition in the manuscript, such as on Page 5 regarding HYSPLIT,

 

A/ I remove the repetition.

 

Please use the numbered citation style, used in Remote Sensing. Check any of the published papers on the MDPI site.

A/ I used the numbered citation style.

The section on results has a swarm of details regarding a number of observed values in a number of locations at different times. This is not helpful at all, a table would be in place here.

A/ a table has been added.

 

 

Please use paragraphs in the conclusions reasonably to guide the train of thought, for example, there could be three paragraphs to discuss each of the set aims (aerosol transport, impact on air quality, aerosol properties). As it is now, it is not evident from the manuscript and in particular its conclusions (there are none, just a discussion) that the authors addressed set aims adequately. The only conclusion a reader can make at this time is that HYSPLIT works well. I am certain that the authors have much more to offer and I encourage them to do so.

A/ I rewrote and separated the discussion and conclusions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review of the revised manuscript

"Impact of smoke plumes transport on air quality in Sydney during extensive bushfires (2019) in New South Wales, Australia using remote sensing and ground data"

by Ali A. Attiya and Brian G. Jones submitted to Remote Sensing

 

The manuscript certainly did go through a major overhaul and has significantly improved. I have no further reservations regarding its publication, I do however have a few small comments for the authors:

1. While it is very helpful the authors provided a revised manuscript with indicated track changes, I would also appreciate a “clean” version which is easier to read.

2. I got no answer regarding my point 3. in the original review regarding the use of ground-based lidar data. I can understand that the use of this data was not in the scope of this work, but I did and do expect some explanation in point-per-point answers to the reviewers, and there was none.

3. The terms bushfire and forest fire used interchangeably throughout the manuscript are synonyms, but perhaps one single term for the fire events under investigation could be chosen to avoid confusion.

Author Response

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

 

While it is very helpful the authors provided a revised manuscript with indicated track changes, I would also appreciate a “clean” version which is easier to read.

 

A/ I have attached clean copy and copy with track changes.

 

I got no answer regarding my point 3. in the original review regarding the use of ground-based lidar data. I can understand that the use of this data was not in the scope of this work, but I did and do expect some explanation in point-per-point answers to the reviewers, and there was none.

 

A/ the use of ground-based lidar data is good suggestion but it was not in the scope of this study. I will work on using ground-based lidar data in the future study. For the current study I recommended a suggestion of using AERONET data for the future work.

 

The terms bushfire and forest fire used interchangeably throughout the manuscript are synonyms, but perhaps one single term for the fire events under investigation could be chosen to avoid confusion

A/ I used one single term for the fire events as you suggest.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx