Mapping PM2.5 Sources and Emission Management Options for Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract effectively summarizes the study's objectives, the main methods used, key findings, and the implications of the research. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail on the methodology to give readers a better sense of how the research was conducted. Consider adding one or two sentences to briefly mention the specific methods or models used (e.g., WRF-CAMx modeling system). This would provide a more rounded summary of the study.
The introduction provides a thorough overview of the problem of air pollution in Asia, with a focus on Central Asia and Bishkek in particular. It effectively establishes the significance of the research.
The methodology section is detailed and comprehensive. It explains the geographic focus, the meteorological data used, the ambient monitoring data, and the modeling techniques employed. The use of figures to illustrate the airshed and monitoring networks is effective. Ensure that all technical terms are defined or explained, especially for a broader audience.
The results are clearly presented with the use of tables, figures, and descriptive text. The discussion interprets the results well, linking them back to the study’s objectives and existing literature.
In the discussion, ensure that limitations of the study are stated, along with any potential biases or uncertainties in the data. This will add balance to the discussion and help guide future research.
line 82-89. Give reference(s)
line 107. Tripled from what?
line 113 - 114. Which hours?
line 181-183. Review the sentence.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language used in the paper is clear and effective, with only minor grammatical adjustments needed for consistency.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General Comments:
This is a well-written article that estimates emissions from a variety of sources in Bishkek, Kazakhstan. The authors use their calculations of emissions and modelling of sources to propose a set of policies that could be used for reducing emissions from the various sector. The paper will add to the sparse literature on air pollution in Central Asia and be of interest to readers. I recommend this article for publication with minor revisions. These are as follows:
The introduction lacks a proper literature review of potential policies that could be used for reducing emissions. The authors suggest some, but without any reference to studies that have shown their efficacy in improving air quality. Please add a paragraph in the introduction briefly summarizing the current policy landscape in Bishkek / Central Asia with regards to air pollution and emissions controls.
Please summarize the suggested policies in Section 4 with a table. This will help readers easily identify the policies and their potential benefits. This could include e.g., policy title, emissions sector the policy targets, rough estimate of the benefits (either in % reduction or a short description), rough timescale for implementation, realistic potential for implementation (e.g., with a simple scale easy-moderate-hard). This summary table would also serve to be of immediate value for policymakers who might read the article.
Please read-through the entire article once more and check for grammatical errors. Most are small syntax or formatting errors, but there are also a few grammatical mistakes. I have noted some of them in my specific comments but have surely not caught them all.
Specific Comments:
Line 30, 97, 280, 301: font of link different from rest of text.
Line 112, 285, 536: minor syntax error in section title name.
Line 132, 330: “included in the supplementary…” add “information”.
Lines 146 and 147: minor syntax errors following µg/m³ (missing space).
Line 171: “feed” not “fed”.
Line 459: syntax error at end of sentence (with comma).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The level of English in this manuscript is high. The majority is well-written, with some small grammatical issues interspersed throughout. These, however, do not impact readability. There are some formatting and syntax errors that need to be addressed, so I recommend the authors re-read and edit the manuscript looking for these. I have pointed some out in my comments.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper entitled “Mapping PM2.5 Sources and Emission Management Options for Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan” , deals with identifying of PM2.5 emission sources in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan's capital city, their mapping, seasonal and spatial variations. The authors employed a dynamic emissions map and 3D meteorological data from the WRF model, as well as the CAMx modeling system which simulated PM2.5 concentrations and assessed the contributions from various sources. Besides, they compared modeled PM2.5 concentrations with air quality monitoring network data. A comprehensive analysis of various measures that might help to reduce air pollution in Bishkek was also done. This extensive research might be applied to many other places throughout the world, particularly in Asia, where many towns are among the most polluted in the world. The results are well-organized, discussed, and paper is easy to follow. English is actually very good. I recommend that this paper be published after some minor changes.
Additional comments to the authors:
- Line 124
I am not sure what the authors mean with “same number of emissions” – maybe on number of emission sources or emission intensity or same pollutant emission?
- Table 1
It is not clear how the authors calculated the percentages given within the last column (2023-2019). There is no consistency between these data and data in previous columns with data for these two years (2019 and 2023).
- Line 459
There is unnecessary coma before citing of reference 7.
- Please unify the way of writing the abbreviation - HoBs or HOBs.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is actually very good.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Mapping PM2.5 Sources and Emission Management Options for Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
By Sarath K. Guttikunda, Vasil B. Zlatev, Sai Krishna Dammalapati and Kirtan C. Sahoo
Review Summary:
The authors have conducted a comprehensive modeling study on air pollution, specifically focused on the city of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. They have developed an emissions inventory, which was then utilized as input for the CAMx chemistry and transport model. Simulations were performed for both a baseline scenario and various scenarios incorporating restrictive emission measures.
Overall, the article is clear, well-structured, and aligns with the “Air” journal's objectives. However, I believe that some revisions are necessary before publication to enhance the clarity and impact of the study.
Detailed Comments:
1. Introduction:
o The introduction provides a solid overview of the pollution issues in Bishkek and other countries in Asia and outlines the changes observed between 2019 and 2023. However, it would be beneficial for the authors to clearly identify the gaps in existing research that their study aims to address. Specifically, the necessity of developing a representative emissions inventory for the study area could be more explicitly highlighted. This would help in framing the contribution of the study more effectively.
2. Materials and Methods:
o The structure of the Materials and Methods section could be improved for better clarity and flow. I recommend reorganizing this section as follows:
§ After section 2.1, which introduces the study area, the next section should present the "Ambient Monitoring Data." This will provide a logical flow from the description of the study area to the data collected in that area.
§ Following this, introduce the models used (WRF and CAMx), followed by the "Mapping Emission Sources and Emission Intensities," since the emissions inventory serves as an input to these models.
§ While the detailed description in section 2.4 is valuable, it could be condensed to focus on the most relevant aspects, ensuring the manuscript remains concise and accessible.
3. Meteorology Section (2.2):
o Since the meteorological data is an output of the WRF model, it might be more appropriate to include this information within the Results section. This would align with the logical flow of the study, where the input data and modeling processes are described first, followed by the presentation of results.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
