The Development of a CO2 Emission Coefficient for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles with Different Road Slope Conditions Using Multiple Linear Regression, and Considering the Health Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic addressed in the manuscript is interesting.
The English language needs substantial improvements.
For instance, right in the Abstract there are plenty of typos and incorrect language forms:
P1L4: “Present studies, the study” – this is not easy to understand.
P1L4: “transport section” - it should be “transport sector”
P1L4: “MDHVs” – it should be MHDVs
P1L4-5: “which are high emission rates” – the sentence does not make sense.
P1L9-10: “MHDVs with heavy to consideration”
P1L11-12: “The researcher collects and maps data” – it should be something as “Data was gathered”
P1L16 : “is more cost” – does not seem correct expression
P1L17: “The studies” – it should be in singular form
P1L18: “affects” – it should be “impacts”, or “effects”
P1L18: “area for the populace affected by” – this should be replaced by “of these areas prone to higher levels of”
General comments:
Having this said, the manuscript needs major improvements in terms of language, sentence construction. It is very hard to understand the message the authors want to transmit.
The manuscript is well structured, and in my opinion, there are too many references for an article.
Whenever the authors refer a figure/table it should be written with capital letter.
Some formatting issues must also be checked; for instance, before L229; missing spaces, commas, periods; small typos as a period instead of a comma (L332: “Then.”).
Were all the figures created by the authors?
It is common to the scientific community to, whenever there is the need to cite a reference by names, it is recommenced to do it using the surname of the authors of the reference, and not the first name.
There are also subsections that are hard to follow. For instance, in the figure of the Research design, what does means the step: “The comparison of the amount of CO2 emissions on the Asian highway” ?
The Conclusion section could benefit from the inclusion of some study limitations.
The manuscript needs a deep revision, because there are lots of incoherent sentences/ideas. To name a few, right in the beginning of the manuscript, for instance:
L30 “The world”, then, L32 refers to “national energy consumption”, and the reader does not know which country are the authors talking about. Later, we understand it is related to Thailand…
L48-49: “Analysis of the sources of pollution affecting people living near the Asian highway shows that
49 it is inevitable for medium and heavy duty vehicles to be used for domestic transportation” – this is not clear
L53: “affects” - effects
L64 : “dynamo-meter” – dynamometer
L64: “astronomical cost” – this is not scientific language
L68: “paper focus is next” – what does this means?
L79-80: “data collected from global positioning system (GPS) and electronic control unit (ECU) will then be calculated factoring in the data” – collected data can not be then, calculated; the authors must clarify this point
L156: “Health affect” – it should be “Health effect”; this type of error is recurrent along the manuscript; please, revise it carefully
L192: “data juxtaposing” – this is not mathematically correct
L204: “Multiple regression, is a statistical technique” – delete the comma
L206: “an explanatory variable” – “explanatory variables”
L215-16: that is not true; a nonlinear regression allows one to do exactly the same purpose
L232: Equation (5): the function is not properly written in mathematical terms
L241: “type of road (eg. surface, road condition)” – it is expected that type of road is more related with urban, arterial, motorway… I suggest the authors to change this parameter name
L273: “In affect” – it should be “In fact”
L287: “the incline level of the route” – this is not correct
L300: Equation (6) – is it used the dot product? This must be clarified
L312: “The coefficient values can be defined regression model” – this is not mathematically correct
L314-320, L324-330: there exist other mathematical ways of writing these
The conclusion section content is interesting; however, the language is not perfectly written and needs improvement.
Even at the bottom of the whole text, there is “Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds ...... are available from the authors” And I think it is missing some information.
Author Response
Revised: Abstract there are plenty of typos and incorrect language forms
Revised: P1L4: “Present studies, the study” – this is not easy to understand.
Revised: P1L4: “transport section” - it should be “transport sector”
Revised: P1L4: “MDHVs” – it should be MHDVs
Revised: P1L4-5: “which are high emission rates” – the sentence does not make sense.
Revised: P1L9-10: “MHDVs with heavy to consideration”
Revised: P1L11-12: “The researcher collects and maps data” – it should be something as “Data was gathered”
Revised: P1L16 : “is more cost” – does not seem correct expression
Revised: P1L17: “The studies” – it should be in singular form
Revised: P1L18: “affects” – it should be “impacts”, or “effects”
Revised: P1L18: “area for the populace affected by” – this should be replaced by “of these areas prone to higher levels of”
Revised: Whenever the authors refer a figure/table it should be written with capital letter.
Revised: Some formatting issues must also be checked; for instance, before L229; missing spaces, commas, periods; small typos as a period instead of a comma (L332: “Then.”).
Were all the figures created by the authors? Yes
Revised: It is common to the scientific community to, whenever there is the need to cite a reference by names, it is recommenced to do it using the surname of the authors of the reference, and not the first name.
Q: There are also subsections that are hard to follow. For instance, in the figure of the Research design, what does means the step: “The comparison of the amount of CO2 emissions on the Asian highway” ?
A: When the carbon dioxide emissions of MHDV of each slope were obtained Then the obtained values are calculated with the amount of cars on the Asian Highway with the value of carbon dioxide emission
Revised: L48-49: “Analysis of the sources of pollution affecting people living near the Asian highway shows that
Revised: 49 it is inevitable for medium and heavy duty vehicles to be used for domestic transportation” – this is not clear
Revised: L53: “affects” - effects
Revised: L64 : “dynamo-meter” – dynamometer
Revised: L64: “astronomical cost” – this is not scientific language
Revised: L68: “paper focus is next” – what does this means?
Revised: L79-80: “data collected from global positioning system (GPS) and electronic control unit (ECU) will then be calculated factoring in the data” – collected data can not be then, calculated; the authors must clarify this point
Revised: L156: “Health affect” – it should be “Health effect”; this type of error is recurrent along the manuscript; please, revise it carefully
Revised: L192: “data juxtaposing” – this is not mathematically correct
Revised: L204: “Multiple regression, is a statistical technique” – delete the comma
Revised: L206: “an explanatory variable” – “explanatory variables”
Revised: L215-16: that is not true; a nonlinear regression allows one to do exactly the same purpose
L232: Equation (5): the function is not properly written in mathematical terms
Revised: L241: “type of road (eg. surface, road condition)” – it is expected that type of road is more related with urban, arterial, motorway… I suggest the authors to change this parameter name
Revised: L273: “In affect” – it should be “In fact”
Revised: L287: “the incline level of the route” – this is not correct
Revised: L300: Equation (6) – is it used the dot product? This must be clarified
Revised: L312: “The coefficient values can be defined regression model” – this is not mathematically correct
Revised: L314-320, L324-330: there exist other mathematical ways of writing these
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe the work is relevant and important as it potentially improves the quality of life of people exposed to harmful carbon dioxide emissions in areas near main roads.
The authors have done a lot of work on the analysis of known methods for assessing harmful emissions and their impact on human health and have proposed their own method to improve the accuracy of estimates by taking into account such a factor as the slope of the road.
The material is presented in a logical and understandable way.
However, the work has a number of shortcomings that need to be considered and eliminated:
1. The statement (lines 146, 147) requires citation or clarification, which will be discussed in more detail below.
2. Line 232, "The current CO2 emission equation used to calculate the amount of pollution created by actual traffic and vehicles on the road, the following formula is used" it is beter to put here referrence to the source of this equation;
3. Line 208 is not clear. Why i = n? May be i = 1, ..., n?
4. Line 226. Referece to the equation 2 mast be in in parentheses like (2)
5. I recommend check mathematical equations representation according to rules for writing mathematical expressions. For example, reference on the expression mast be a number in the in parentheses without word "expression" (line 243), variables and indexes in the text mast be written by italic font (line 243) without quotes ...
6. Figures 13, Fuel Consumption Rate given in units "km / L at% o", Figure 13 "km / L" therefore from this picture fuel consumption decreases with increasing of sea level. Is this right? Consumption Rate in the equation (6) given in the "L / km" units. If it is not a mistake, you have to explain this pictures more detail.
7. In Figure 15, there are no units for the horizontal coordinate axis.
8. Different number of digits after the decimal point, for example, equations (7), (8) and (10), (11), figure 16, figure 18. In the figure 14 (table) there are different accuracy numbers in the one column (Length) It is not clear from the paper why you present numbers with different accuracy. If it is necessary you have to explain this.
9. Figure 21, the font is too small, it is necessary improve quality of the picture.
10. It is necessary to correct the subscript "0" in expression (1), it looks like a separate character.
11. In the equation (2) there are different letters X: capital (uppercase X) and lowcase (x), but there is no explanation of these designations, it is worth adding clarifications or correcting an inaccuracy.
12. In most expressions, you use the dot "." as a sign of multiplication, but in expressions (5) and (15) the symbol "x" is used. If it doesn't make much sense, it is recommended to also use the dot "." Symbol. (It should be noted that the multiplication sign is most often not put at all, with the exception of those cases when special attention is required to it.
It is best to stick to the rules of this magazine, but they should be the same in all cases. )
13. The purpose of square brackets in expressions (6), (13), (14), (15) is not clear. They may not be needed.
14. In expressions (10), (11), (12), parentheses may not be needed.
15. The results obtained in the work make it possible to obtain practical benefits for the population, which is noted in the above conclusions. However, it makes sense to supplement the conclusions with a statement of the advantages of the proposed method. It would be very helpful to provide a short numerical comparison of the traditional and proposed estimation method, if possible.
I hope that the elimination of these shortcomings will improve the quality of the presentation of the material and the attitude of readers to the achievements of the authors.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Revised: The statement (lines 146, 147) requires citation or clarification, which will be discussed in more detail below.
Revised: Line 208 is not clear. Why i = n? May be i = 1, ..., n?
where, for i=0,1,2,3,4,5,6:
Revised: Line 226. Referece to the equation 2 mast be in in parentheses like (2)
Revised: I recommend check mathematical equations representation according to rules for writing mathematical expressions. For example, reference on the expression mast be a number in the in parentheses without word "expression" (line 243), variables and indexes in the text mast be written by italic font (line 243) without quotes ...
Revised: Figures 13, Fuel Consumption Rate given in units "km / L at% o", Figure 13 "km / L" therefore from this picture fuel consumption decreases with increasing of sea level. Is this right? Consumption Rate in the equation (6) given in the "L / km" units. If it is not a mistake, you have to explain this pictures more detail.
Revised: In Figure 15, there are no units for the horizontal coordinate axis.
Revised: Different number of digits after the decimal point, for example, equations (7), (8) and (10), (11), figure 16, figure 18. In the figure 14 (table) there are different accuracy numbers in the one column (Length) It is not clear from the paper why you present numbers with different accuracy. If it is necessary you have to explain this.
Revised: Figure 21, the font is too small, it is necessary improve quality of the picture.
Revised: It is necessary to correct the subscript "0" in expression (1), it looks like a separate character.
Response: yi = λ0 + λ1xi1 + λ2xi2 + . . . λpxip+ ∈
Revised: In the equation (2) there are different letters X: capital (uppercase X) and lowcase (x), but there is no explanation of these designations, it is worth adding clarifications or correcting an inaccuracy.
Revised: In most expressions, you use the dot "." as a sign of multiplication, but in expressions (5) and (15) the symbol "x" is used. If it doesn't make much sense, it is recommended to also use the dot "." Symbol. (It should be noted that the multiplication sign is most often not put at all, with the exception of those cases when special attention is required to it. It is best to stick to the rules of this magazine, but they should be the same in all cases. )
Revised: The purpose of square brackets in expressions (6), (13), (14), (15) is not clear. They may not be needed.
Revised: In expressions (10), (11), (12), parentheses may not be needed.
Revised: The results obtained in the work make it possible to obtain practical benefits for the population, which is noted in the above conclusions. However, it makes sense to supplement the conclusions with a statement of the advantages of the proposed method. It would be very helpful to provide a short numerical comparison of the traditional and proposed estimation method, if possible.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
