Exploring the Mass Concentration of Particulate Matter and Its Relationship with Meteorological Parameters in the Hindu-Kush Range
, Mohammad Valipour 4,*, Allah Ditta 5,6,*, Armin Sorooshian 7,8, Rana Roy 9, Iftikhar Ahmad 1 and Rashid Iqbal 10Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer#1
Comments to the Author. Title. Exploring the mass concentration of particulate matter and its relationship with meteorological parameters in the Hindu- Kush range
Authors: Farooq Usman, Bahadar Zeb, Khan Alam, Mohammad Valipour, Allah Ditta, Armin Sorooshian, Rana Roy, Iftikhar Ahmad and Rashid Iqbal.
Manuscript Number:
General Comments:
The mass concentration of ambient particulate matter (PM) affects their ability to interact with both solar radiation and water vapors, which in turn leads to varying effects on the climate, cloud formation and precipitation, and public health. Therefore, the current study attained significant importance in the recent years. This current research work investigate on the variation of PM mass concentration in three size fraction on monthly and seasonal basis, along with their ratios like PM2.5:PM10, PM1:PM2.5. The meteorological conditions of the study site were reported in detail. The study was carried out for the year 2019, in Mingora city (Swat, Pakistan) from where we have little information about particulate matter. Furthermore, the PM was correlated with meteorological parameters like rain fall, relative humidity, temperature and wind speed. Overall, the manuscript could make a good contribution to the scientific research by providing useful scientific knowledge on PM concentration, variations and its other properties over the study domain. I believe that the manuscript needs the following corrections before it is considered for publication by Atmosphere.
Response: Thanks for the appreciation and recommendation. We have incorporated all the suggested corrections from the worthy reviewer
Please see below more specific comments and questions:
- The last sentence of the abstract should be cut and include in the last paragraph of introduction
Response: We have included the last sentence of the abstract in the last paragraph of the introduction
- Write the new WHO level for PM mass concentration wherever applicable in the paper.
Response: As recommended by the reviewer, the new WHO standard for PM is incorporated wherever needed in the manuscript.
- Please provide more detail about the sampling process for gravimetric evaluation. Describe the treatment of filters prior and after air sampling.
Response: Done as suggested by honorable reviewer see section 2.2.
- Describe the importance of your study in last paragraph of the introduction
Response: The importance of the study has been incorporated in the last paragraph of the introduction
- Latest work may be sited in the current field.
Response: As suggested by the honorable reviewer. The latest research articles have been incorporated please see references no. 9, 11 and 14
- Figure 2 is suggested to combine in one.
Response: Done as recommended by the honorable reviewer.
- Page No. 5 Sec 3.1., the units of PM concentrations mentioned as g m-3 but it should be in µg m-3. Please go through it.
Response: Done as recommended by the honorable reviewer.
- Page No. 9 Line No. 231 & 234, please specify the study area where the results defined.
Response: Done as recommended by the honorable reviewer.
- Page No. 10 Line No. 256. RF has two-fold…., sentence is not clear, rewrite the sentence
Response: As suggested by the reviewer the sentence has been rewritten to clear understanding
- Page No. 11 Line No. 268 – 270, sentences need to rewrite for better understand.
Response: As per recommendation by the reviewer, the sentences have been restructured for better understanding
- Page No. 12, Line No. 284 – 285, check the PM10 and PM2.5 notations, Follow the same notation as PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 in the entire manuscript.
Response: As per recommendation by the reviewer. The notations have been checked and corrected on page No. 12 and throughout the manuscript
- The conclusion may be concise and to the point.
Response: Done as recommended by the reviewer.
- Check the reference 9 in the reference list, mention the vol. no and page nos, please check the references carefully.
Response: We have revised the mentioned reference and cross-checked the rest of the references
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I found the paper original for the area where the experiments have been conducted, but many other papers are also dealing with the same subject. The method is well described but apart from the temperature and precipitations maybe atmospheric pressure should pay an important role there. I would prefer a percentage representation instead of histograms, but of course this was the vison of the author about the paper and i respect that, this is the reason why I agreed with the article in the present form with small modifications. Concerning the conclusions, the authors said that those results can be used in future stratagies of lowering emissions, but they haven't identified in this paper the source of the emissions.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 2 Comments
I found the paper original for the area where the experiments have been conducted, but many other papers are also dealing with the same subject. The method is well described but apart from the temperature and precipitations maybe atmospheric pressure should pay an important role there. I would prefer a percentage representation instead of histograms, but of course this was the vison of the author about the paper and i respect that, this is the reason why I agreed with the article in the present form with small modifications. Concerning the conclusions, the authors said that those results can be used in future strategies of lowering emissions, but they haven't identified in this paper the source of the emissions.
Response: We immensely appreciate the positive statements and productive recommendations by the reviewers about our manuscript. They spend their valuable time on this manuscript and we are thankful for their detailed comments. Undoubtedly, the recommended changes have improved the quality of our manuscript and we hope the reviewer will find this revised version suitable for publication. Our response to the comment below is in red font. The possible sources of pollution are mentioned in the manuscript, see section 3.4.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Exploring the mass concentration of particulate matter and its relationship with meteorological parameters in the Hindu-Kush range
I initially run this manuscript for the similarity and found out this has 53% of similarity with previous submissions.
Specifically for this particular work.
8% o this
Variations in PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 in an Urban Area of the Sichuan Basin and Their Relation to Meteorological Factors
and so on.
Therefore, I reject this paper.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 3 Comments
Exploring the mass concentration of particulate matter and its relationship with meteorological parameters in the Hindu-Kush range
I initially run this manuscript for the similarity and found out this has 53% of similarity with previous submissions.
Specifically for this particular work.
8% o this
Variations in PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 in an Urban Area of the Sichuan Basin and Their Relation to Meteorological Factors
and so on.
Therefore, I reject this paper.
Response: We have cross checked the manuscript regarding similarity. We have found that the submitted manuscript was matching with the candidates own thesis. For your kind information, we have included both the reports i.e. including thesis and without thesis
Before exclusion of student paper
After exclusion of student paper
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have this major issue on this paper.
I understand the plagiarism scores are there, bcos of the author's thesis. However, has the university given permission to publish the write up as it is in his/her thesis to another paper?
Please clarify this?
The amount is 38% and that is a very big concern.
Author Response
Response to the reviewer's comment
Comment: I have this major issue on this paper. I understand the plagiarism scores are there, bcos of the author's thesis. However, has the university given permission to publish the write up as it is in his/her thesis to another paper? Please clarify this? The amount is 38% and that is a very big concern.
Response: We certify that the University gives permission to the author (in this case the Ph.D. student) to publish papers from his/her own thesis. During thesis submission, the Ph.D. thesis of each student is deposited in the HEC repository by the Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) of the University in order to avoid any repetition/similarity with other researchers later on after his/her Ph.D. Again we certify that the University gives permission to the author (in this case the Ph.D. student) to publish papers from his/her own thesis.
