Estimation of High-Resolution Daily Ground-Level PM2.5 Concentration in Beijing 2013–2017 Using 1 km MAIAC AOT Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The methodology of AOT should be explained a bit more.
Table 1, The reason why the variation rate of MPE is lower than RMSPE should be explained in Discussion section.
Fig. 6, the unit of color should be defined.
The figures with color symbols must be more clearer.
Insert the space between number and unit; 1km -> 1 km
It will be better to discuss the yearly tendency based on practical field data, particularly in Fig. 9. for example, if PM2.5 has really decreased from 2013 to 2017..
line 327 preliminarly
line 334~337 the sentence preferably should be divided into two sentences.
Model accuracty or credibility according to the practical data would be better to mention in Conclusion section. ※(line 227~230)
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Your paper is very well to understand it. Will you revise a few points, indicated by comment boxes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with the development of a linear mixed effect model integrating ground-based observation of PM2.5 concentrations and satellite-derived aerosol optical thickness correlated with meteorological observations and particle composition. The resolution is 1 km, higher than previous works. Results and methodology are clearly presented and I believe this work will be useful for future researches and applications by public administrations. However, the manuscript must be revised by the authors, since some considerations are incorrect and the language is sometimes mistaken. The authors should refer to the following comments to carry out their revision.
General comments:
In the introduction, the authors should convince the readership on the innovation they bring to the research in the field of atmospheric pollution and monitoring. The motivations expressed in the introduction are weak.
English requires a thorough revision by a native speaker or a professional translator.
Please always insert a space between numbers and units of measure through the whole manuscript (abstract included).
Specific comments:
Page 1, Lines 33-34: with respect to what? Please specify in the manuscript.
Page 2, Line 53: Syntax must be revised.
Page 2, Lines 66-70: English should be thoroughly revised. This part is really confusing.
Page 3, Lines 87-90: Please insert one or more reference in this sentence.
Page 3, Line 95: “are” is missing.
Page 3, Line 122 (and Page 11, Line 267): vertical profile of what? Please specify in the text.
Page 5, Lines 175-178: Please correct the syntax.
Page 6, Line 183: Please correct as “Results” in the title.
Page 10, Lines 260-261: Please replace “cross-validation of model-I and model-I” with “cross-validation of model-I and model-II”.
Page 12, Line 317: the authors mentioned “biomass” as a “clean energy alternative”, but this definition may be ambiguous in terms of air quality. Biomass burning is neutral in terms of CO2 balance, but generates PM emissions. The authors could correct this statement by writing that biomass implies lower impacts than coal combustion.
Page 13, Line 339: The adoption of the model may work well to estimate the incidence of pathologies or mortality in the long-term, but a 1-km resolution is still not adequate to estimate short-term effects. Hotspots like urban street canyons will not be detected by the model; in such contexts, the stagnation of air pollutants near the ground may results in far higher PM2.5 concentrations with respect to non-canyon-like streets, with obvious consequences for residents and workers. In health-impact studies, higher resolutions are used. The authors must specify that their model, though suitable for estimating long-term effects, cannot be adopted for evaluating short-term effects. Such correction should be made in other parts of the manuscript (Abstract: Page 1, Line 27; Main text: Page 8, Line 219).
Figures:
- Figures 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are unreadable. Please enlarge them and increase the font size.
- In Figure 9, for completeness of information, a map of the city should be added to the results of the model estimations.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors considerably improved their manuscript and solved all the issues arisen.
