Air Quality in Lombardy, Italy: An Overview of the Environmental Monitoring System of ARPA Lombardia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am glad to review the article entitled “Air quality in Lombardy, Italy: an overview of the environmental monitoring system of ARPA Lombardia” as it clearly describes the air quality monitoring system for one of the most interesting regions in Europe in terms of air quality in correlation with meteorological specificity and industrial development.

The title is suggestive enough given the topic of this study.

The abstract should be revised to better capture the important elements of this paper. Statements such as the one from lines 6-8 are better suited to the introductory section.

In the abstract of the paper, in the description of the main objective as well as in the conclusions section, the concept of "citizen science" and the attempt to develop this philosophy are mentioned. However, the relations between the proposed topic and this concept are not sufficiently debated and highlighted.

The abbreviations should be defined the first time they are used in the manuscript. If a specific abbreviation is not frequently mentioned, then you should cite only the unabbreviated term.

All figures should have a picture border in order to better distinguish separate figures. All figures and tables should be first referred to in the text and then appear as close as possible to their first mention, generally after the paragraph where they are cited.

For figures taken from external sources, the author must ensure that they are presented at a sufficiently good resolution. I suggest restoring figures 2 and 3, as in their current form they look as if they were taken over with the Print Screen function. The author must also check whether it is necessary to include in the manuscript all the figures taken from external sources (a high amount of figures are included in the manuscript) or whether there is an opportunity to provide references to their source.

In the introduction section, it is necessary to highlight more clearly the studies with similar topics as well as their main results.

The subsections “3.1. A brief description of the main airborne pollutants” and “3.2. Main effect of air pollutant exposure to human health” must be restructured or included in section 3 as it presents information widely available in the scientific literature. Only the essential elements need to be mentioned, for the rest, the bibliographic references should be sufficient.

There are overlapping numbers in Figures 5, 15 and 16 which make the graphs hard to read.

Check the alignment of paragraph 665-667.

Figure 22- there is no point in presenting the percentage values with two decimals (for example 1.50%). Also indicating only the main wind directions (N, E, S, W) on the graphs should be sufficient.

Check figure 23- overlapping numbers and letters

Subsection “4.3. The new European Air Quality Index” can be summarized and included in subsection “3.3 International air quality standards”.

The manuscript is generally well structured, but in some places the author insists on details that are already well grounded in both literature and practice. For example, paragraphs between lines 609-612 and 617-621. A more concise approach would make the manuscript more appealing to the reader.

make sure your 'conclusion' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the

applicability of your findings/results

The results section is presented way too descriptive; the interpretation of the results should have a more significant weight in this section. Make sure your 'conclusion' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results.

In conclusion, I appreciate that the author's work is valuable and I would like to see it published. The above suggestions are to improve the overall quality of the manuscript and reader understanding.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the valuable comments and for giving me the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Find attached my reply to your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript brings a good overview of the environmental monitoring system in Lombardia and in EU in general. Overall, the paper gives a good summary for understanding air quality monitoring system/ requirements/ necessity, etc.
However, there are several comments which must be considered in the paper before being published:
1) There are lack of references in the Introduction. Even the authors refer to sources. For example: "As defined in all European directives on air quality...", "According to the legislation..." and many others. The references must be placed in each sentence where information is taken/ refer to other sources.

2) The paper contains analysis of trends (e.g., line 743, 786, 821-835, fig. 24-25), but there are no values indicated, only qualitative phrases like "significant reduction", "strong reduction", etc. Everywhere in the paper, where trends are discussed, its values and corresponding significance must be indicated.

3) Abstract, lines 21-23 and Conclusions, lines 856-858.
"The data also show that meteorology, induced by the unfavorable geography of the area, is not able by itself to clean the air (low rainfall and wind almost everywhere not very intense) facilitating the stagnation of pollutants."
The manuscript does not contain any analysis which could prove this conclusion. It is impossible to estimate relationship between pollutants and meteorology based only on time-series dynamics. I highly recommend to rewrite this statement. 

4) Line 245. Maxima O3 is observed in the stratosphere at the altitudes higher than 20 km (in mid- and low-latitudes). 10-15 km is relevant only for polar regions.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the valuable comments and for giving me the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Find attached my reply to your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper provides an extensive description of monitoring in Europe and gets into the Lombardy region. The space dedicated to Europe is appropriate for a report, or a text book but is not a contribution to a paper and its title.  I suggest that the initial portion should be either summarized substantially or removed. Also the data presented in the EU stops at 2017, therefore outdated. 

 

The analysis of trends in concentrations of pollutants is not accompanied by explanations on emission reductions and the policies that lead to those reductions. While comprehensive, the information doesn't deliver messages on what gaps remain to continue to improve air quality in the region. It also does not reflect or mention how outdated EU standards on air quality are in comparison to WHO guidelines published in 2021.

The paper would benefit from a bigger focus on the Lombardy data, linking trends of emissions and lower pollution. More should be done on what needs to occur to continue to reduce pollution, including explicit mention of measures to reduce the biggest source of primary PM2.5, wood. 

There are some figures without axis or some truncated text portions 

 

P2, L73. This is an important assertion and some reference should be included.

P28, L798. Incomplete sentence.

P23. Fig 23. Missing axis.

P31. Between captions for Fig 24 and Fig 25, truncated text.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the valuable comments and for giving me the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Find attached my reply to your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript has been improved and most of my specific and technical comments have been addressed. My recommendation is to publish the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your corrections. The paper could be accepted from my side.