The Vertical Distribution of VOCs and Their Impact on the Environment: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript is revised throughly according to the reviewers' comments and it seems to be better. I agree it to be accepted 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the impoved version of your manuscript. I accept all your ammendments.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The problems previously mentioned in the manuscript have been revised, but the author is suggested to compress the manuscript, which is a bit long.

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

Very badly written review about vertical concentration of some volatile organic compounds. Authors write in extremely bas English with a lot of simplifications and incorrect wording. Moreover, the review is not written in comprehensive form bringing some work synthesis and novelty. Authors have omitted a plenty of important measurement techniques and came to incorrect outcomes, such as that towers are build in order to perfom canister sampling on it. In my view, even English checking would not help. Authors are mixing stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, which have completely different chemistry and implications.

line 13: define VOCs

line 14: define SOA, in abstract you need to define abbreviations again

line 31-34: please rephrase. Currently it has the meaning that if generated through photochemical reaction, then it has negative effects. If emitted directly from the source, it does not have the effects. Please reformulate so that the sentence does not have double menings.

line 35: please be more specific, only halogenated VOCs have the effect on stratospheric O3 depletion. In here it sounds that all the VOCs have such effect

line 40-42: it is not true! NO does not produce stratospheric O3!!

line 42: Stratospheric O3 dos not have adverse effect on public health and ecosystems, as it is in stratosphere. Please correct.

line 44: it is not spoken English, do not use "and so on"

line 47: sentence does not make sense

line 48-49: be specific, writing that there is a close relationship has no information.

line 51: Again, in urban, there is no issue with stratospheric O3 - maybe you should define differently the abbreviation O3 and make it clear throughout the text!

line 58: The (i) definition does not make sense. Please reformulate. Write better English

line 60, 76: bad English, reformulate

line 84: Write better English, it is not spoken English, but scientifi article

Table 2: bags or canisters are not instruments. Reformulate the title

line 1-3, as counted again from the beginning at 1.2.1: incorrect. Mostly towers are not for canister sampling or tube sampling, but for active sampling with instruments that will operate continuously, as for example proton transfer time of flight mass spectrometers (PTR-TOF-MS) - that should be stated here and the paragraph should be here about this instrumentations.

1.2.1: you might add here 10.5194/acp-22-5603-2022 showing PTR-TOF-MS measurements from tower as an example of tower based flux measurements

line 14-15: definitely not correct. No one will build a costly tower to do only canister sampling. Towers are build only for continuous measurements and those measurements mentioned here could be only add-ons.

line 39: Again,. PTR-TOF ONLINE sampling from aircraft is missing here

Fog 1: it is your graph? If not, citation is missing

line 104: What is TVOC? You never defined that

line 424: "VOCs degraded themselves" is absolutely not appropriate. Use correct wording. They are oxidized.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presented a detailed review of vertical  VOCs which were scarely reported and helped the readers know more about VOCs in the vertical profile. It is meaningful and suitalbe for the possible publication after making minor revision.

1. Grammer and spelling should be paid more attention. For example, VOCs is the right one and VOC should be avoided. 

2. Analysis is an important way to know more information about VOCs speices. So, it should be added and be an important part of this article.

3. As for the sources of VOCs. More information should be supplied. For example, domestic sources like catering, auto repair , coatings and so on are also need to add. Besides, PMF is more suitable for VOCs source apportionment than PCA due to the non-negative calculation, and papers used PMF for VOCs source apportionment could also be seen on line as usual.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript systematically summarizes the vertical changes of VOCs, which has important reference significance for the current ozone generation and related research. However, there are also some problems that need to be modified:

1. Put line 587, Part 5 Sources of VOCs, in part 1.

2. There are two 1s, 1. Introduction and 1. VOCs vertical distribution sampling techniques, in line 30 and 67;

3. Part 2 of line 92: vertical distribution characteristics of VOCs. The following 2.1 and 2.2.3 are comments from the perspective of time. In particular, it is illogical to put 2.2.3 under the title of 2.2. And 2.1 is also a time change. Therefore, it is suggested that 2.2.3 and 2.1 form a new 2.1 under the same title, mainly based on time change.

4. The manuscript is too long, which can be greatly compressed, especially in part 2.1 .