Population-Level Exposure to PM2.5, NO2, Greenness (NDVI), Accessible Greenspace, Road Noise, and Rail Noise in England
Hakan Şevik
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a very interesting article. I am sure it will be of interest to readers. The fact that the article is not based on direct measurements raises some questions. However, it will certainly contribute to the literature. The article could be improved by making some elaborations. For example, the number of references could be increased. Some references are very old. If possible, references older than the last five years should not be used. Apart from that, air pollution is constantly mentioned, but only PM and NO2 are evaluated as air pollution components. These expressions can be used instead of air pollution including the title and summary. Apart from that, it can be explained why PM is particularly dangerous and harmful. The amount of PM may be higher in rural areas. Because the amount of hard ground is low. Wind movement of soil or pollen can significantly increase the amount of PM. However, these PMs are generally less harmful. In urban areas, however, PM is contaminated with heavy metals from traffic and anthropogenic sources, which are much more harmful to human health. This needs to be elaborated on in the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript examined cross-sectional greenness, accessible greenspace, PM2.5, NO2 , road noise and rail noise exposure data at all residential postcodes in England. This appears to be very concrete and practical. However, there are still some problems that need to be solved.
1. In lines 37-47 of the introduction, this manuscript provides an introduction to the types of airborne pollutants and describes the dangers of various pollutants to the human body; to emphasize the importance of this article, it is necessary to add the serious challenges that are now faced by the materials used for air pollution protection. These articles can be referred to, Nano Letters 2022, 22, 9485-9492, Energies 2024, 17, 1861 and Atmosphere 2022, 13, 2074, etc.
2. This manuscript only shows the results of the simulation and does not list the main simulation formulas, which lacks a certain degree of persuasiveness.
3. The formatting of the references in this manuscript is highly problematic and needs to be carefully revised to make the formatting consistent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study reports a very important topic, assessing the combined effects of air pollution, accessibility to greenspace and noise. The work is well-designed, structure of the manuscript is logical. References used are appropriate and up-to-date. The authors took an enormous task analysing a huge number of postcodes (1,227,681 as the manuscript states). I strongly believe that the topic will attract numerous readers.
It should also be mentioned that authors themselves point out some discrepancies caused by the definition of greenspace and stress that better definitions could be more useful.
The text is easy-to-read and easy-to-follow. Methods are well described, results are clearly presented and illustrated.
Some points need to be clarified, however.
Line 37-38: Please specify WHO limit values (Daily vs. annual)
Line 41-42. Please specify the mechanisms PM2.5 affects airways and respiratory system.
Line 44. Data used is rater old (of 2013).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
