Electrification of Road Transport and the Impacts on Air Quality and Health in the UK
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focuses on two underappreciated features of the transition to electric vehicles: local pollutants and non-exhaust emissions. I think these features are worth of study and the paper makes a nice contribution, particularly showing the difficulty of meeting air quality goals given non-exhaust emissions.
Two thoughts. Why not also calculate carbon emissions? This should be relatively easy to do. Many studies focus only on carbon, and ignore local pollutants. So including carbon would make a nice addition to this paper that include local pollutants.
The assumption about a static grid is pretty strong. This is partially addressed in the limitation section, but still it stands out as a unreasonable assumption. Is there any recent work on the electricity sector in the UK that can be leveraged to give an estimate, however, crude, of the decrease in emissions from generating electricity in the UK over time? Even some simple benchmark such as 3 percent decrease per year would be an improvement over the analysis in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study deals with a very pertinent topic by examining how electrification of the UK’s road transport fleet may impact ambient PM2.5 and NOx concentrations and the resulting population health impacts. The paper is diligently prepared and the relevant citations are thorough. Certainly, it is a good work. I have no comments and in my opinion it should be published in the present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with the electrification of road transport and its impact on air quality. Aauthors consider three different scenarios. The limitation of the study is the omission of the impact of EV charging on elecricity generation and this is discussed by the authors in step 5.1. In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is well written, clearly organised and presented. The topic is within the scope of the journal, and it is relevant for a broader audience. Findings will certainly be of interest for the scientific community.
However, there are flaws in the design of the overall scientific programme: the rationale behind the selection of PM2.5 mass concentration as indicator of adverse health effects (together with NOx) is to be discussed in more details. The last WHO guidelines (WHO, 2021) further decreased the recommended values for PM2.5 mass concentration, with clear indications on the limitations related to this metric (PM2.5 mass concentration) as indicator of adverse health effects. It is now generally accepted that higher PM2.5 mass concentrations do not necessarily translate into higher toxicity, and that low PM2.5 mass concentrations do not guarantee “safe” conditions. New approaches and scientific evidence are needed to overcome the current situation. In this regard, the last WHO guidelines (WHO, 2021) recommend consideration of Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) and Black Carbon (BC) concentration.
I hope this background is useful to authors to put their PM2.5 findings into a broader perspective.
At least, it is highly suggested that authors discuss the point in paragraph 5.1 (study limitations). If possible, it would be really interesting if the authors add specific results on BC and/or UFPs. This has the potential to result in a higher degree of novelty of the findings.
In conclusion, the manuscript may add interesting information to the scientific community and deserves publication by Atmosphere, after attention is given to the limitations linked to the use of PM2.5 mass concentration as indicator of adverse health effects (see above).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
