Air Pollutants over Industrial and Non-Industrial Areas: Historical Concentration Estimates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors may require proof reading of the manuscript since there are still many typos and English program in the manuscript. For example, L25, the authors may consider remove "even". L201, consider using "data not available". L209, "The values obtained values". L243, what is "h2.3.4"?

The methodology is not clear:

• What is the meaning of "CcA" in Equation 1? How will the authors explain this equation mathematically?
• What is database (d) in Equation 1?
• In Equation 2, whether a and b are the same pollutants? If not, how they are related?
• Why the authors need to correct the annual concentration to residential zones? In particular, L265-266: Why it was necessary to correct the annual average concentrations for the entire district to residential zones? 
• L289: The author discussed about "data for a suspended particulate matter". Is it TSP? If so, why there is only PM10 and PM2.5 in the graph? How the authors used TSP data in this case?
• L320: What are the reasons that the authors assumed that benzene and B(a)P conc during 1980-1995 was similar to 1997?

The result section is also not clear:

• After adjustment, it might be better to show data in Table 1 and 2 again with data from the adjustment.
• Figure 7-9 for PM10, can the authors explained with supporting evidences what changes that make the emission changes in different area over time?
• What are the link between emission and concentration (ex. Figure 11)? Some area had high emission, but low concentration.
• Section 3.2 can be shorten since there is no result from the LUR method for comparison. It is the perspective from the authors only.

Another important question is how the method in this manuscript be applied to other area for the interests of other readers since it is very specific for the study area and the judgement of the authors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the reviewer report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• Line 200: The author should include the unit in both Tables 1 and 2.
• Line 344: Do the author have PM 2.5 data to show in the region of Figures 7, 8, and 9? PM 2.5 could be a big contributor to human health due to its smaller size.
• Line 355: Why did the author choose the period 1997-2019 and 1980-1995? How did the author determine the period to analyze? Why didn’t include 1995-1997 data?
• Line 356: Can the author explain more how do the two parts influence the calculation accuracy?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study aims to develop a method for historical concentration estimation for air pollution in different areas. After careful check with the abstract, I have concerns about the novelty of this study. My specific concerns are:

1. The significance and novelty are not clear from the abstract.
2. What are the key findings of this study, please highlight them in the abstract section.
3. Abstract could confuse the readers; how this study will improve the knowledge?
4. SO many keywords are listed in the keywords section. The authors should use the most relevant keywords.
5. I understand the key contribution is methodology development. The authors explained a good number of literatures. I recommend connecting them and making logical connections. Also, the authors should highlight the importance of the proposed method.
6. The manuscript contains sufficient data. My concern is with the methods sections. It’s hard to follow. The authors could present a flowchart of the methods as they mentioned that the aim is to develop a method.
7. Eqn 1 and 2, is it developed by the authors?
8. All figures quality needs an improvement.
9. Line 419, then why the proposed method is important?
10. Authors can present some visual comparison of the results with old method and the proposed method.
11. Finally, conclusions need revision. I am confused about how it will improve the knowledge?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the questions/comments raised in the previous revision. 

Author Response

Thank you for the review and for the time spent on this manuscript. We appreciate it. 

[x] English language and style are fine/minor spell check required - we did it.

Vitezslav Jirik, corresponding author

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has shown the improvements for this study and addressed the review comments.

Author Response

Thank you for the review and for the time spent on this manuscript. We appreciate it.

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required and in the all points "Can be improved" 

We did it.

Vitezslav Jirik, corresponding author

 

Reviewer 4 Report

I am happy with the current version of the manuscript. IT can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the review and for the time spent on this manuscript. We appreciate it.

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required - we did it.

Vitezslav Jirik, corresponding author