On the Correlations between Particulate Matter: Comparison between Annual/Monthly Concentrations and PM10/PM2.5
, Loïc Maurer 3, José Vazquez 2 and Cédric Wemmert 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Nil.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I would like to thank the authors for reviewing their work taking into consideration my comments. I reply here to some answers of the authors.
(i) Line 37 and in general within the text: please pay attention to the subscripts.
>>>We checked the subscripts and changed the faulty ones.
>>> Please check lines more closely: lines 243; 271-273; 275; 278.
(ii) Figure 2 and paragraph 3.1.: in addition to the boxplots, have statistical tests been performed to evaluate whether the differences found are statistically significant or not?
>>>We have not conducted statistical tests in addition to the boxplots.
>>> If possible, I suggest the authors report these evaluations, as it would make the work more "scientific".
(iii) Figure 3: I think it is also important to report slopes and intercept values and discuss them within the text.
>>>We added the slopes and intercepts on the figure and discuss them within the text: “The slopes and intercepts of the two linear regressions presented in Figure 3 are of the same order of magnitude, but slightly different, confirming that using all years or each year independently led to different results.”
>>> I think there is a typo in the figure (sloap > slope).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript uses numerical simulations and in situ monitoring to study particulate matter concentrations in several regions of French. The paper mentions that annual concentrations of pollutants can be assessed based on monthly concentrations and correlations between particulate matter concentrations are determined. In other words this is a prediction of pollutant concentration, the overall analysis is good, the method is more comprehensive, but the guidance of the reality is still lacking, there are some contents need to be revised and added, it is suggested that the manuscript is published after minor revision. My detailed comments on the manuscript are as follows：
1. The purpose and significance of the article is not highlighted in the Introduction, and it is suggested to strengthen the supplement.
2. What is the method used in line 64? The expression is incomplete.
3. The units in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 9 should be [μg/m3].
4. The format of the horizontal and vertical coordinates PM10 and PM2.5 in Figures 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 are modified correctly.
5. 128 lines of equations are suggested to be written as equations.
6. In lines 247-254, is the weighting method used supported by the literature?
7. It is recommended that the conclusion section be further streamlined and condensed to write the important conclusions of the paper.
8. There are already many models that can make good predictions of atmospheric pollutant concentrations, what are the advantages of the article's approach?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Why are some parts of the article highlighted in yellow?
PM10 and PM2.5 instead of PM10 and PM2.5 is often written in the text.
Line 299-300
"Following our 3 types of months shown in Section 3.2, the regression presented in Table 3 can be calculated."
However, only two types of months are specified in Section 3.2
Section "Conclusion"
How justified is the use of the methodology for determining the annual concentration using monthly concentrations described in the article if there are such differences by months?
Line 373-376
"If no better option is available, PM10 and PM2.5 can determine the other using a linear law. The results can be improved by knowing the influence either background or traffic and the month type, either winter, intermediate or midyear or the best, knowing both and averaging the results of the two linear regressions."
In our opinion, the ratio of PM10 and PM2.5 can vary greatly depending on time and place. Therefore, the predictions proposed by the authors of the article may be inaccurate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Thank you very much for the detailed answers and interesting article
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper under review presents correlations between annual and monthly concentrations of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The analysis makes use of extensive source material covering monthly values of concentrations of both fractions of particulate matter (28 000 mean monthly values) from 230 different stations (background, industrial, traffic) in France. The data concern the period 2011-2019.
The aim of the authors was to demonstrate the possibility of forecasting the annual concentrations of particular matter on grounds of monthly concentrations. The procedure and statistical reasoning was conducted correctly. However, the obtained results, in the opinion of the Reviewer, are faulty and do not encourage implementation of the presented solutions. Also, some discrepancies in the assumptions made by the Authors are evident. On the one hand, the Authors aimed at demonstrating the possibility of indirect forecasting the annual PM concentrations on grounds of the monthly values (therefore eliminating the costly direct measurements). On the other hand, in order to implement the simplified indirect method, direct measurements on the previous year are needed. All in all, the measurements cannot be omitted, and the said measurements are conducted continuously and not in selected months.
Additionally, as the Authors claim in Chapter IV – Discussion and perspectives (line 322-323), the obtained results can be applied in a region of a comparable climate, with 4 seasons in a year – generally, in Europe. Under the condition that the estimation error is within the tolerance of the user. In the opinion of the Reviewer, the target reader from France (Europe) would find this paper interesting, therefore I recommend the paper to be published in a journal of a lesser scope i.e. national.
Other remarks:
- Introduction, line 43, literature references 12 and 13 do not concern particulate matter
- Introduction, line 44, literature references 19-23: there is no need to refer to 5 literature references to confirm “on site monitoring” particularly given that 3 of the literature references do not concern PM
- Results, line 140-143 – reference to fig 2 – in what way was the referred slope of the curve calculated?
- Results, line 178-179 – seasonal variability of PM concentrations is particularly well recognized and documented in the literature of the subject
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Author
Major comments:
(1) The abstract (line 11-24) requires further modification. Can the authors further summarize line 11-17 to make it more concise. Some of the statements in line 352-386 can be used to refine the content in abstract.
(2) In introduction (line 62-65), Can the authors remove these sentences and replace with aims of study in the end of this section.
(3) In Section 2.1 (line 67-80), can the authors remove this section entirely or embed this section to the introduction?
(4) In Section 2.2 (line 84-85), can the authors provide coordinates for the locations?
(5) In Section 3.3 (line 222-223), please provide further explanation about this issue.
(6) In Section 3.6 (line 273-274), please remove or improve the statement. This statement should not exist with “?”
(7) In Section 3.6 (line 296-297), please improve the citation for “Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”.
(8) In Section 5.0 (line 352-386), please refine (a) to (j) further as the present form is too long for a Conclusion section.
Minor comments:
1. Data availability, line 94-95
Please provide relevant citation for “ASQAA”
2. Table 1, line 100
Please provide footnotes in the bottom of Table to specify for missing data in “Nouvelle Aquitaine” and “Noramndie”.
3. Manuscript, line 1-391
Please use 2 decimal place for R value and revise presentation such as “ 27\%” throughout the manuscript. Please also replace “indeed” with alternative vocabulary.
4. Section 3.3, line 206-207
Please revise “each year apart” and “So, is it possible to improve the results when considering each year independently?”
5. Section 3.5, line 261
Please revise “this law”.
Reviewer 3 Report
In manuscript ID: atmosphere-2062982, entitled "On the correlations between particulate matter: comparison between annual/monthly concentrations and PM10/PM2.5", the authors verified whether the technique used in previous studies (with the aim of verifying the possibility of evaluate the annual concentrations of NO2 based on the monthly concentration) could also be used for PM. In general, I believe that the results are not discussed, which is fundamental in a paper of this type. In addition, I believe that the limits of the work should be better specified by the authors.
Minor comments are reported below:
- Line 37 and in general within the text: please pay attention to the subscripts.
- Lines 42 – 43: with reference to “[…] studies have shown that annual standards are generally harder to reach [12,13] […]”, can the authors be more specific?
- Figure 2 and paragraph 3.1.: in addition to the boxplots, have statistical tests been performed to evaluate whether the differences found are statistically significant or not?
- Figure 3: I think it is also important to report slope and intercept values ​​and discuss them within the text.
- Figure 3: why not move this figure to paragraph 3.2, where it is mentioned?
- Lines 225 - 227: I think a reference is needed here.
