Chemical Characteristics of Fine Particulate Matter in Poland in Relation with Data from Selected Rural and Urban Background Stations in Europe

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reads primarily as a review paper of air quality at selected monitoring stations across Europe, as almost half the paper is background/review (pgs 1-8), Methods ~2 pgs, results/discussion and conclusions ~ 11 pgs. The authors indicate the objectives of this paper as two differ purposes. One was a e comparison between the PRELUDIUM work and other available air monitoring data obtained through the literature review (this is indicated in two locations – methods section lines 385-386, and conclusions lines 656-658. In contrast the authors also indicate that this is a systematic review – Methods section first paragraph lines 325-334. The paper reads more like the latter, where the PRELUDIUM work is used as a basis, but not necessarily being compared, but part of the overall report. The authors should more clearly indicate the main focus of this manuscript.

In the background the authors indicated a number of limitations, such as use of different instruments and methods (lines 231-236) and issues on siting criteria for monitors (lines 140-141 and 228-231). In presenting the comparison of sites these issues where not discussed I regards to limitations, or reasons not to consider as limitations.

Lines 68-73 – Needs grammar and punctuation editing – the entire paper needs minor grammar and punctuation editing for English.

This paper is an excellent review for understanding the status of fixed station air monitoring in the EU, the general differences in PM air quality between geographic regions/countries, and the general knowledge of PM air pollution and its constituents.

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. We take into account all of your comments and suggestions.

We fully agree with the comment relating to the main focus of the study – we clarified it and  we have made appropriate changes to the text (rows: 138-148, 401-403, 677-678). It was rightly noted that work is more systematic review than “comparison between PRELUDIUM work and other available air monitoring data”. The results obtained as part of the research project Project no. 2011/03/N/ST10/05542 (under PRELUDIUM funding scheme 2nd edition) were not so much the basis of this work, but they contributed to conducting in-depth literature studies, resulting in this publication.

Because there is a lack of works, that summarized recent state of the air quality monitoring in terms of particulate matter, the section 2 of the manuscript has been addressed on this issue. We briefly discussed, among others, the location criteria of the particular type of monitoring stations (section 2.2) and some limitations, that hinder the comparison of the results obtained from different sites. As you rightly noticed, we do not take into account these limitations when discussing the results. It results from the adopted methodology – specific criteria of choice, which we have indicated in the rows 345-362. However bearing in mind your comment, we added a short fragment in the rows 347-353.

Finally, the fragment in the rows 69-74 has been changed, according to your comment. The entire text of the manuscript has been revised in terms of language issues (grammar and punctuation editing).

Reviewer 2 Report

The review of publications and status concerning PM and especially PM2.5 is very comprehensive and very good. The most important publications within this field are cited adequately  and it is a pleasure to read this review. However, it might be of use if you can find and cite more recent papers additional to [5,20] in line 70.

Chapter 4 is correct, but difficult to read because of all the details. Maybe additional summarizing or highlighting sentences would be helpful.

Author Response

Thank you for the very positive opinion, we are glad that the manuscript has met your expectations. Taking into account your comments, we added some more recent references relating to the subject of the impacts of PM chemical composition on human health (row: 71). We realize that Chapter 4 contains a lot of information, but we tried to treat the subject very thoroughly. The results summary has already been included in Chapter 5: Conclusions.