Comparison of NO2 and BC Predictions Estimated Using Google Street View-Based and Conventional European-Wide LUR Models in Copenhagen, Denmark
, Jie Chen 2,7, Seyed Mahmood Taghavi-Shahri 1, Marie L. Bergmann 1, Thomas Cole-Hunter 1, Youn-Hee Lim 1, Laust H. Mortensen 1,8, Ole Hertel 9, Rasmus Reeh 10, Joel Schwartz 7, Gerard Hoek 2, Roel Vermeulen 2, Zorana Jovanovic Andersen 1, Steffen Loft 1,* and Heresh Amini 11,12,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEntire comments are attached in Review report file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Quality of English Language must be improved for easily understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper titled, "Comparison of NO2 and BC Concentrations Estimated Using Google Street View-based and Conventional European-wide LUR Models in Copenhagen, Denmark " by Tayebi et al predicted and compared NO2 and BC levels using Google Street View (GSV)-based mixed-effects LUR 28 models (Google-MM) that predicted 2019 mean levels, and the second was European-wide (EUW) 29 LUR models that predicted annual mean 2010 levels at 100 m spatial resolution in the greater area of Copenhagen Denmark. This study is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the journal "Atmosphere". It will aid the scientific community related to BC, NO2, and ambient particulates. Therefore, I recommend this publication. However, there are certain “Specific Comments” which are very important to address which can further add value to the manuscript. These comments are given below. In addition of these comments, the English language of the manuscript needs a significant improvement specifically related to correcting superscript and subscript, grammar, and sentence flow. As examples, the general language corrections are suggested in “English Language Corrections”
Specific Comments:
1- Lines 49-52: Please provide some examples of non-communicable diseases and specific diseases associated with NO2. Currently information regarding specific diseases is very generic. Its important to provide examples.
2- Lines 82-85: These sentences are extremely important in terms of highlighting gap and the objective of the study, however they are confusing. Kindly elaborate the significance of comparing Google-MM 82 and EUW LUR models in the context of this study.
3- Line 87-89: It would be good to merge these lines with the previous ones.
4- Figure 4. The respective graphs needs to be upgraded. X and Y axis font size need to be increased.
5- At the end of discussion section, atmospheric implications of this study should be provided to further highlight the importance of this study in the context of atmospheric measurements and techniques. Moreover, it should discuss gaps/limitations of this study and respective way forward.
6. There is a summary at the end of the manuscript. However, a separate conclusion section should be introduced to enlist the main findings of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish Language Corrections (Examples):
1- Line 291: Replace “lower” with “low”
2- Line 298: Replace “measurements of” with “measuring”
3- Line 199: The “2” of “R2” should be in superscript.
4- Line 308: Add “in number” after “increase”.
5- Line 316: Add space between Fig. and 2.
6- Line 338: Add space between “for” and “childcare”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Lines 160-166: The standard deviation mentioned here is not seen in Table 1.
2. Line 167: The first appearance of AQG should be written with its full name.
3. In the second row of Table 1, the first three columns of the word "Model" are in bold, but the rest are not.
4. Line 275: The correlation mentioned here, 0.63, is not mentioned in any of the four figures. Is this 0.63 describing at street-, residential-, or the overall (street + residential)?
5. Figure 1: Issue one - In the third image, the scale unit is in miles, while in the fourth image, it is in kilometers. The scale units in the images should be consistent. Issue two – labels of latitude and longitude should be added to the map to provide a better understanding of the location of the study area. Issue three - Only the second image has a compass; compasses should be added to all four images.
6. The paper mentioned some important locations (e.g., airports, L170, L237) in the text. The author should highlight these locations in Figure 1.
7. The authors were comparing the results of two different models, and none of them were reference-level outputs. The reviewer suggests that data from fixed monitoring stations in the study area should be introduced as a reference for the comparison as well.
8. Lines 124-128: The authors compared model results from two different periods (2010 and 2019). However, the author emphasized that due to the lack of BC data, BC-LUR-2019 was not estimated. This could introduce some uncertainties. Therefore, the authors should consider this as a limitation. Further discussion and clarification on this limitation should be provided.
9. Lines 237-238: the Google-MM LUR model indicated NO2 values near the airport were below 11 μg/m³. What about the results from EUW-LUR? The authors should double-check if the conclusion can be supported by both models.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevised manuscript is well and can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments have been thoroughly addressed. Therefore, the paper is recommended for publication.
