A New Technique for the Passive Monitoring of Particulate Matter: Olive Pollen Grains as Bioindicators of Air Quality in Urban and Industrial Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

   -No brief description about problem statement and significant finding in abstract.

-The discussion in methodology is clear.

-Table 1: The tabulated results are collected from Umbria. The reviewer expected the study areas shall be TR, MM and PG. Please clarify.

-Figure 3-5: The results in these figures need to be discussed via comparison of MM, TR and PG in terms of their geographical location or industrial activities (even though it has been described in section 2.1) that lead to these results. These discussions are important to verify the credibility of these results.

-In conclusion, the attainment of research objectives need to be discussed by stating the finding in results that address the attainment.

 

 

Author Response

 

Plese see the attachment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

What is the big conclusion - a take home message?

Introduction:

In the introduction section the authors need to point out how this study is different from the other limited literature (in brief). This difference will provide the motive for the study. Also, clarify and focus on the research problem. What is the contribution of this investigation and it's major findings to understand this type of pollution in other parts in the world.

Materials and Methods:

The methods for the chemical analyses are partially provided in this section; there is no indication that any analysis of QC/QA was done. Please add details to the methods section regarding the sampling protocols followed in this study.

 

Fig.2. Please provide north arrow.

Discussion:

Some results are very interesting, but are mainly just reported with little discussion of the significance of the findings.

 

Conlusions: Authors should not loosely add new ideas in their conclusions section but provide essential conclusions here.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript describes an application of using olive pollen as a novel monitor to assess atmospheric pollutants.  Passive samplers with and without pollen grains were placed in three locations: a town with moderate particulate pollution; an industrial area with higher levels of pollution; and a rural area as a control/area with low pollution.  Daily deposition fluxes of the main soluble and insoluble elements and soluble molecular ions were determined following laboratory methods previously described by Selvaggi et al., 2022.  Soluble/insoluble element and soluble molecular ion values were reported as summary data and were used to calculate the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) and bioaccumulation index over time (BAIt) for control (CNT) and pollen (POL) samples at each location.   

Specific comments:

Introduction: The introduction is a relatively concise summary of other applications for using pollen from other species to examine the deposition of pollutants from the atmosphere as taken up by pollen. Additionally, the introduction describes studies where pollen may be used as a biomonitoring tool to examine adverse effects of pollution on biological processes.  This is fine.

Materials and Methods. Overall, the experimental design , sampling methods and chemical analysis is sound. Methods for calculating the BAF and BAIt are typically used to assess uptake of pollutants by plants from water and soil, however as described in the Introduction and data described in this manuscript, there is evidence of deposition flux of pollutants in pollen.  Some sort of comparative statistics would greatly improve the manuscript. 

Results:  Table 1 is somewhat confusing.  Is this the chemical composition analysis  of the pollen used in the 2019 and 2021 studies prior to exposure. It is also not clearwhat was the source of the Olea europea pollen and  analysis performed.   Table 1S should include all of the meteorological parameters described in the Materials and Methods, (PM2.5 is missing) and   abbreviations should be defined.  In describing results from the 2019 and 2021 experiment, (Table 2S and Table 3S the term "flows" (also in line(s) 241, 242, 340 and 341 in the manuscript text) seems to have replaced "flux" as was used previously.  It is not clear why BAF and BAIt results were presented in the Discussion and not within the Results. This reviewer suggest that these be separated.  Again, some comparative statistics would improve the manuscript overall.

 

The manuscript in general could be improved by careful editing for English but, overall is well written.  When genus/species names are used Italics or underline is preferable.  It is not clear why  "deposition fluxes" was used in the abstract and Materials and Methods and "pollen sample flows" was used in the results and Tables 2S and 3S. 

Author Response

Please see  the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The title indicates that the article will focus on describing the new methodology. I think it is inadequate to the purpose and scope of the research.

The purpose of the research is clearly defined and corresponds to the content of the manuscript.

Line 97-98 "This is the reason for the latter site was chosen as cntrol site." A mental shortcut.

Line 108-125: Is the choice of climatically different regions appropriate. Could climate have influenced the results of the study? See lines 307 - 309.

Dust disposition was measured. Dust deposition depends on many factors, including the size and density of individual dust particles. Please indicate in the manuscript the factors affecting the deposition of particulate matter? Explain how this could have affected the results of the research in different regions.

Were the characteristics of the physical properties (shape, size, number of individual fractions) similar in the considered locations? Please complete in the manuscript.

Results: I think that most of the results presented in supplementary materials should be included in the article. These results are not very many, and it would make it easier for the recipient to read the article.

They should be discussed. Figures showing test results should also be transferred to the results chapter. Alternatively, you can try to make one chapter results and discussion.

The discussion section focuses on discussing the results. There was no discussion on the new methodology used in comparison with other existing methods. The content of this chapter is more relevant to the results chapter. I suggest to structure the article and reinforce the discussion in the context of other studies and other methods.

The conclusions are inadequate to the purpose of the research. They have not been supported by strong scientific evidence.

The last paragraph of the conclusion is a mental shortcut that does not follow from the presented results.

I believe that the article needs thorough proofreading and rethinking before publishing. I recommend that you review the results, conclusions, and purpose of the study and resubmit the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed issues in manuscript. The manuscript is well improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is greatly improved.  The authors made extensive changes and were responsive to reviewer comments. 

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript has been corrected. Many important changes have been made. I appreciate the commitment of the authors of the manuscript. The article is suitable for publication.