Estimation of Air Pollutant Emissions by Tractor Utilization in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an estimate of emissions from agriculture tractors in South Korea in years 2011 and 2019.
Although I have no doubt that the results presented are correct and the methodology appropriate, i fail to see the scientific added value of the paper, as a standard methodology is applied and no critical discussion is performed.
Some suggestions to the authors for making they work a more interesting scientific paper:
- explain your methodology: clarify and critically discuss the choices you made, e.g., for emission factors or other parameters.
- support your choices: based on which evidence do you think your methodology is the most appiopriate?
- discuss uncertainties: all numbers in e paper come as exact values. This is not realistic and several studies have addressed uncertainties of various types in producing emission factors. Please discuss uncertainties in your case.
- Compare your results with other sources: results are shown in isolation and not compared with any other source. Please place your estimate in the broader context of other similar work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is overall acceptable but would profit from revision.
Author Response
- explain your methodology: clarify and critically discuss the choices you made, e.g., for emission factors or other parameters.
→ Revised in the manuscript.
- support your choices: based on which evidence do you think your methodology is the most appiopriate?
→ We updated emission factors to use Tier 3 methodology compared to Tier 2 methodology.
- discuss uncertainties: all numbers in e paper come as exact values. This is not realistic and several studies have addressed uncertainties of various types in producing emission factors. Please discuss uncertainties in your case.
→ In this study, we focused on analyzing air pollutant emissions from farm tractors in Korea. We need more works for uncertainties.
- Compare your results with other sources: results are shown in isolation and not compared with any other source. Please place your estimate in the broader context of other similar work.
→ This is the first in detail work on air pollutant emissions from farm tractors in Korea. So it’s hard to compare the results with other sources.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of this manuscript “Study on the Analysis of Air Pollutant Emissions by Tractor Utilization in Korea” is good and covered all the contents. The utilization portion is required more polishing. However, lack of the depth of the research and language of the manuscript was written poorly and a lot of grammatical errors. Some major changes are required in the manuscript as mentioned below. The authors should incorporate these points and after incorporating these, I recommend it for publication.
In methodology section, research design is inappropriate. Conclusions does not support the present finding.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage of the manuscript was written poorly and a lot of grammatical errors.
Author Response
In methodology section, research design is inappropriate. Conclusions does not support the present finding.
→ Abstract and main body of the manuscript including conclusions were revised thoroughly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigated the emissions and activity levels of walking tractors and riding tractors in Korea in 2011 and 2019 to determine the emission characteristics of walking tractors and riding tractors. If the following problems are well-addressed, it is believed that the essential contribution of this paper are important for the analysis of air pollutant emissions by tractor utilization in Korea.
1. The content in line 18 was a duplication with the content of lines 15-16, and it was suggested that the duplicate expression should be deleted.
2. The authors needs to define "Tier 3 methodology" in line 20.
3. Line 21 gives a 13% reduction in total emissions, while what does line 25 refer to a 16% reduction in total emissions?
4. line 22, check that "riding tractors" are correct, and "farm tractors" is given in line 136 below.
5. Lines 26-28 show that riding tractors account for 61% of total air pollutants, and walking tractors as a percentage of total air pollutants should also be stated. Does "61%" mean 61% of Korea's total air pollutants or does riding tractors account for the total atmospheric emissions of both types of tractors?
6. The three sentences in lines 28-32 should be placed in front of line 20 "The total amount", where GIS analysis is the research method.
7. The lack of a gap in the introduction compares with current research in this field, and the large amount of literature on environmental health cited is not necessary and has little relevance to the topic. References to agricultural tractor emissions over the timescale of this study and established emission inventories may be more indicative.
8. Lines 60-67 reflect the emission of pollutants and are best integrated into the second paragraph of the introduction.
9. Line 85, check that the citation in literature [21] is correct. Reference [21] is an article about the health benefits of clean cooking, without mentioning the calculation of SOx.
10. No units appear in Equation (2) and "Fuel sulfur weight" is referred to with one letter.
11. Line 86, how FFi is obtained?
12. Line 111, there is no [27] in the references, and the authors also need to check the references in the full text.
13. Lines 117-118, can you give a geographical map of which areas participated in the survey?
14. Figure 1 requires additional abscissa.
15. Line 164, percentages are used throughout the text, and "doubled" is used here to create ambiguity, and it is better to convert to proportion.
16. The fonts in Figures 1, 2, and 3 need to be marked with large marks to make them easier for the reader to read.
17. Lines 176-180 and 181-184, there is no need to repeat the original data in the table, and the difference in pollutants can be explained by proportion, which will be more informative.
18. The GIS plot in Figure 4 should be higher emissions for the North and West, but why is South and West given in the summary? Figure 5 also makes it difficult to see that the high emission areas are in the south and west.
19. The conclusion should preferably be divided into three paragraphs, the first paragraph explains the main research content and methods of this study, the second paragraph explains the conclusions of the study, and the third paragraph summarizes the gaps and shortcomings filled in the relevant fields.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
3. The manuscript needs to be edited with necessary revision by a native English speaker.
Author Response
- The content in line 18 was a duplication with the content of lines 15-16, and it was suggested that the duplicate expression should be deleted.
→ Abstract was revised thoroughly.
- The authors needs to define "Tier 3 methodology" in line 20.
→ “Tier 3 methodology” was explained in the “Materials and Methods”
- Line 21 gives a 13% reduction in total emissions, while what does line 25 refer to a 16% reduction in total emissions?
→ A reduction of 13% was correct.
- line 22, check that "riding tractors" are correct, and "farm tractors" is given in line 136 below.
→ “Farm tractors” in line 136 was changed to “riding tractors”
- Lines 26-28 show that riding tractors account for 61% of total air pollutants, and walking tractors as a percentage of total air pollutants should also be stated. Does "61%" mean 61% of Korea's total air pollutants or does riding tractors account for the total atmospheric emissions of both types of tractors?
→ Line 27 was rephrased to clear any possible misunderstanding.
- The three sentences in lines 28-32 should be placed in front of line 20 "The total amount", where GIS analysis is the research method.
→ “The total amount” mentioned in lines 28-32 was calculated using the methods described in sections 2.1-2.3: it has nothing to do with the GIS methodology explained in the next section 2.4. Therefore, the present sentence layout seems to be proper.
- The lack of a gap in the introduction compares with current research in this field, and the large amount of literature on environmental health cited is not necessary and has little relevance to the topic. References to agricultural tractor emissions over the timescale of this study and established emission inventories may be more indicative.
→ References having little relevance have been deleted.
- Lines 60-67 reflect the emission of pollutants and are best integrated into the second paragraph of the introduction.
→ Lines 60-67 have moved and integrated into the revised second paragraph of the introduction.
- Line 85, check that the citation in literature [21] is correct. Reference [21] is an article about the health benefits of clean cooking, without mentioning the calculation of SOx.
→ Revised in the manuscript.
- No units appear in Equation (2) and "Fuel sulfur weight" is referred to with one letter.
→ Units for EFi, FFi, and l are described after Eq.(2). “Fuel sulfur weight in %” is the % weight ratio of sulfur component contained in a specific fuel such as diesel, gasoline, and so on.
- Line 86, how FFiis obtained?
→ Defied in the reference 21
- Line 111, there is no [27] in the references, and the authors also need to check the references in the full text.
→ Revised in the manuscript
- Lines 117-118, can you give a geographical map of which areas participated in the survey?
→ We used information issued by Korean government. So it covers all 8 provinces and 8 metropolitan cities in South Korea
- Figure 1 requires additional abscissa.
→ Fig.1 compares relevant data between year of 2011 and 2019; thus, a single abscissa would be sufficient.
- Line 164, percentages are used throughout the text, and "doubled" is used here to create ambiguity, and it is better to convert to proportion.
→ Sentence was modified to avoid ambiguity.
- The fonts in Figures 1, 2, and 3 need to be marked with large marks to make them easier for the reader to read.
→ Figures were enlarged to figure them out clearly. Revised in the manuscript.
- Lines 176-180 and 181-184, there is no need to repeat the original data in the table, and the difference in pollutants can be explained by proportion, which will be more informative.
→ The contents of corresponding sentences have been refined as much as possible in accordance with the reviewer’s comment.
- The GIS plot in Figure 4 should be higher emissions for the North and West, but why is South and West given in the summary? Figure 5 also makes it difficult to see that the high emission areas are in the south and west.
→ Revised in the manuscript
- The conclusion should preferably be divided into three paragraphs, the first paragraph explains the main research content and methods of this study, the second paragraph explains the conclusions of the study, and the third paragraph summarizes the gaps and shortcomings filled in the relevant fields.
→ The reviewer’s intention have been reflected in the revised conclusion section as much as possible.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- The manuscript needs to be edited with necessary revision by a native English speaker.
→ Editing and proofreading of the manuscript has been done by a native English speaker.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStudy on the Analysis of Air Pollutant Emissions by Tractor Utilization in Korea
(Manuscript: agriculture-2542168-peer-review-v1)
I am convinced that the topic undertaken by the Authors falls within the publication area of Agriculture journal.
The paper title corresponds to the content. The References list contains the latest data from the last few years.
The content of the manuscript has a classic layout for a scientific article: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions.
I found no methodological errors. The topics of the article are important although not novel.
However, I have a comments and objections:
1) Table 4 and Table 5
Too dense spacing between adjacent numbers.
2) Figures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Letters and numbers too small. Readability needs to be improved.
3) References: [1], [2], [3], [26]
Please add a source (link) on the Internet.
4) References style. Please consider the following publication as a patern:
Rutkowski, K.; Łysiak, G.P. Influence of Mulching on Replantation Disease in Sour Cherry Orchard. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081587
Author Response
1) Table 4 and Table 5
Too dense spacing between adjacent numbers.
→ Spacing is increased for better readability.
2) Figures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Letters and numbers too small. Readability needs to be improved.
→ Letter and number sizes are increased for better readability.
3) References: [1], [2], [3], [26]. Please add a source (link) on the Internet.
→ Those references are government reports written in Korean; unfortunately, they are not available on the internet.
4) References style. Please consider the following publication as a patern:
Rutkowski, K.; Łysiak, G.P. Influence of Mulching on Replantation Disease in Sour Cherry Orchard. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081587
→ Reference descriptions have been modified to be compatible with the MDPI guideline.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsline 111: no reference for [27] citation
line 122 no reference for QGIS software
The section of Results and discussion has no citation at all, please link between your findings and others.
Author Response
line 111: no reference for [27] citation
→ Reference added
line 122 no reference for QGIS software
→ Revised in the manuscript
The section of Results and discussion has no citation at all, please link between your findings and others.
→ There has previously been so little work in Korea similar to our work that meaningful citation both in quantity and quality is hard to provide in the Results and Discussion section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI still do not see the scientific added value of the paper.
Editings from the authors did not improve it enough to allow publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood enough.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
Authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly. Editor may take the decision.
