Spatial Mapping of Air Pollution Hotspots around Commercial Meat-Cooking Restaurants Using Bicycle-Based Mobile Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an innovative approach to monitoring urban air pollution using micromobility-based mobile platforms to measure concentrations of Black Carbon (BC), PM_2.5, and NO₂ in Chuncheon, South Korea. The research is a valuable contribution to the field of environmental science, particularly in the context of urban air quality assessment and public health. This method can achieve a higher spatial resolution, which provides detailed insights into pollution distribution, especially around localized area emission sources, often undercharacterized clusters such as commercial meat-cooking restaurants.

The paper is well-structured, with a clear abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. While the authors applied bias corrections, additional details on the calibration process would strengthen the paper. Addressing the limitations of portable devices’ potential data noise due to variable cycling speeds would strengthen the research. Overall, the research provides practical implications for urban air pollution management, potentially benefiting spatial-temporal characterization to identify the hot spots.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses electric bicycles with throttles and speed monitors to conduct mobile measurements of black carbon (BC), PM2.5, and NO 2 in Chuncheon, South Korea. Overall, this is a good paper, but the following issues remain:

1. In the introduction, the reference for pollutant emissions is from 2018, which is relatively old. We suggest citing data from recent years to show that this study is still valuable.

2. In the description of Section 2.1 of the manuscript, it is mentioned that the restaurant is open from about noon to 10 pm. Why is the measurement carried out between 6 pm and 8 pm? It is recommended to explain the reasons for the selection of the measurement period in the manuscript, as well as the choice of the reference point (BG).

3. The number of valid representative concentration data is greater than 2 in 10 (morning) and 11 in 11 (evening). What is the reason for choosing this ratio?

4. In the evening, the largest increase in BC and PM2.5 concentrations is in the commercial area B (88% and 64%, respectively), followed by the residential area (76% and 54%, respectively) and the commercial area A (72% and 48%, respectively). Why is the increase in residential concentration greater than that in commercial area A? Explain based on your experience.

5. Mobile monitoring of bicycle use is a good idea, and it is important to pay attention to speed control. However, why choose this speed? Is there any basis?

6. In Figure 6, the author classifies the test area into roadside commercial A, commercial B, residential, A flow, and B flow. It is recommended to mark it in the picture for readers to view.

7. This study selected January 28 to March 5, 2021 as the days for the experiment, which has a large time span. Will external factors (such as outdoor temperature and heating method) affect the analysis of the results? Appropriate explanations can be provided.

 

8. The test sites include residential and commercial areas. Have the author considered the impact of citizens' living habits on the surrounding environment, such as whether the difference in citizens' nightlife on Monday night and Friday night will affect the test results? If not on these two days, the specific experimental date can be a day of the week.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is concerned with mobile monitoring, identification of hot spots and detection of pollution sources in an urban agglomeration. Overall, the article contains a number of interesting results and methods that can be used in similar studies. The conception of this manuscript looks and sound scientifically but some essential points are missed here. No excessive self-citation here. Manuscript results are not complete without some points listed in remarks. Figures and tables are appropriate.

I have a number of comments and recommendations for the article:

Methods section

1. For what reason do you avoid days in your research that have high background concentrations of air pollutants? Give an explanation, please.

2. The section does not provide any data on the climate of the study area, as well as the meteorological situation in which air pollution was monitored. Try to add this data to your work.

3. How many dimensions fall into these grid polygons of 30*30 meters in size? How many measurements were obtained during each route? This data needs to be supplemented.

Results and discussion section

4. Apart from the general figures for the number of restaurants in the commercial zone, there is no other data on their spatial position in the article. Perhaps a heat map of restaurant locations would help strengthen your argument about their impact on air pollution.

5. Why is there no data on NO2 pollution in Figure 4?

6. Check the scale of the picture 4. Are the degrees indicated correctly? Maybe the numerical scale was more appropriate.

7. What is the situation with vehicles in the commercial area where the restaurants are located? There is reason to believe that vehicles will have a significant impact on the results of your research.

8. Additional ways are needed to confirm the connection between restaurant operations and ground-level air pollution. Perhaps a correlation analysis between the pollutant value and the distance of the nearest restaurant would work for you, or the average distance to all restaurants could provide important information for evidence. It seems quite logical to use spatial methods to exclude random distribution of data (Autocorrelation (Global Moran's I)), (Getis-Ord General G) and others).

9. All drawings are of poor quality and difficult to read.

In conclusion. At this time, the article does not appear to be conclusive evidence of air pollution from commercial restaurants. Additional data and research could strengthen the strength of the authors' arguments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you, i found these corrections appropriate. Good luck to authors!