Monitoring and Prediction of Particulate Matter (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀) around the Ipbeja Campus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper “MONITORING AND PREDICTION OF PARTICULATE MATTER (MP2.5 AND MP10) AROUND THE IPBEJA CAMPUS” (authors: F. M. Silva, E. C. Alexandrina, A. C. Pardal, M. T. Carvalhos and E. S. Lui) has been reviewed.

 

There are some suggestions and comments:

1. Maybe it would be better not to use the description of the experimental setup in the detail in the abstract: “The device contains a particle sensor (NOVA SDS011), a microcontroller ESP8266 NodeMCU v3, a temperature sensor, humidity, pressure BME280, and a suction tube”.

2. The groups of references “[6-11]” and “[12-16]” need a more detailed analysis in the text, or several main sources could be left.

3. Two different descriptions were merged into one: “It is also known that the deposition of particles in the respiratory tract depends on the size of the particle. Larger particles are less harmful, as they are retained in the upper respiratory system and quickly settle in the soil under the influence of gravity”.

4. Why were the distances of “5 meters high” and “4 meters away from the street” selected (not 5 and 5)? It needs to be explained.

5. It would be better to present a scheme instead of Figure 3, or not to show a figure at all.

6. In the text, the description of the experimental equipment is a little more detailed than that in the abstract. What is the accuracy of measuring devices of the concentrations of PM 10 and PM2.5?

7. The authors wrote that: “The monitoring was done for 7 months start February 2022 until July 2022 in this period in Portugal the season is Spring and Summer reaching temperature of 42 degrees”, but only the results of the six months are given in figure 4. The authors need to add “42 Celsius degrees”.

8. The experiments need to be performed in the other place and the model should be tested with the new results.

9. The conclusions lack concreteness. The conclusions should provide insights, recommendations and so on.

10. The boundary conditions for applying NARX should be defined in the third conclusion.

11. It is very difficult to understand what new was performed. All chapters need to be expanded.

 

Conclusion

The results are interesting, and I think this paper may be accepted for publication in the journal only after major revision.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer:

1. The suggestion was implemented at work.
2. The suggestion was made.
3. The suggestion was considered and made.
4. These are the characteristics of the building where the equipment is located, and it was the only place where you can place the equipment to perform the monitoring, due to the need for it to be with access to energy.
5. The suggestion was considered and implemented at work.
6. The suggestion was considered and implemented at work.
7. Was correct in the work.
8. It would be interesting to increase the quality of the work, but this is not yet it was possible.
9. The suggestion was considered and made.
10. The suggestion was considered and made.
11. The suggestion was considered and made.

The authors tried to meet all the suggestions and corrections proposed.   Thank you   Flávia Silva

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments about the paper: "MONITORING AND PREDICTION OF PARTICULATE 2 MATTER (MP2.5 AND MP10) AROUND THE IPBEJA CAMPUS "

1.       The title should be rewritten where MP needs to change for PM (just a mistake).

2.       MATLAB was used as a working tool in constructing the mathematical tool. Brazilian researchers have already published work in this scientific area (https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2018-0055). As a result, maybe it is necessary to explain better the results from NARX, comparing the results with other similar studies. The prediction could be made using only the concentration data of the particulate material of the previous day and comparing the results with the use of temperature as input; perhaps the use of temperature does not have significant interference for this type of prediction. The neural network presented satisfactory results, considering it was a restricted data set.

3.       Please explain explicitly the contribution/novelty of the study in the introduction part.

4.       The results are meaningful but provide contextualization i.e. either contradiction or consistency of your results with prior studies.

5.       Elaborate the limitations and future directions of your study.

6.       I found some grammar and syntax errors. Please improve the overall write up of manuscript.

7.       The literature has ignored some recent studies. Please include the recent studies, for instance;

i.                     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122703

ii.                   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.101000

iii.                 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14365-9

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer:

1. Was corrected in the work.
2. The suggestion was accepted and implement.
3. The contribution of the study was placed in the introduction.
4. The suggestion was accepted and implement in results.
5. The conclusion was updated.
6. The English was corrected.
7. The authors are grateful for the suggestions, however it was not possible to use these references in the work, but they will be considered for future works.

The authors tried to meet all the suggestions and corrections proposed.

Thank you

Flávia Silva

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper analyzed the data from the last months, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and meteorological parameters for prediction using NARX. The authors draw some interesting conclusions. However, I'm afraid the paper in its current form is far away from being publishable.

 

1.    The research contribution of this paper is insufficient. In the Section Introduction, the author's discussion and introduction of the research motivation are not sufficient, and the contribution and innovation of the article are not outstanding. Besides, the literature review is not enough, and the structure of the article is not clear. The manuscript in its present form is structured like a report and does not present a systematic review of earlier studies and major landmark studies. Has similar work been done and reported elsewhere? What differentiates this study from the rest?

2.    The content is very sparse and unsystematic. The author only gives the location and structure of the experimental equipment in three figures, without introducing the experimental design in detail. Why use NARX predictive models and what is it used for? The analysis using collected data is also too simple and the study's conclusions is shallow.

3.    This paper does not involve theoretical analysis, lack of qualitative analysis, and quantitative analysis is too simple. Although some data were collected by using the equipment of air quality monitoring and quantitative analysis was carried out, the quantitative analysis was far from enough to draw robust research conclusions.

4.    There are too many long sentences in this paper, which are not clear enough. There are some grammatical errors. Obviously, the authors need to sort out the long sentences in the paper and extensive modification of the English text will be needed.

5.    There are certain analytical normative problems in the paper. The basic structure of the paper is reasonable, but the content is far from complete.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer:

1. All suggestions were analyzed and an attempt was made to respond to all of them, updating the manuscript.
2. The experimental design has been updated.  

   Neural networks have shown success in modeling and forecasting nonlinear time series. For particulate matter, prediction models are important to understand the behavior of variables and can serve as an alert system for the population in places with high concentrations.

   The authors have previous experience in the use of NARX neural network architecture for particulate material prediction. NARX allows you to select how many exogenous inputs and delays should be used in the training and prediction process. In future work, with the results of this exploratory work, it will be possible to make changes in the model, including other data related to air pollution (meteorological variables, topographic, etc.) and more weather steps for the future forecast (48h, 72h).

3. The Beja region did not have air quality data, with the results obtained in this work the data collection will be directed so that new models are possible to be used.
4. The English were corrected and updated.
5. The paper was improved according to the editor suggestions.

The authors tried to meet all the suggestions and corrections proposed.

Thank you 

Flávia Silva

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper discusses the collection and analysis of monitoring data, and proposes the following possible factors for the change level of the external air environment of the research object. The presentation of data results is relatively clear. The research design is more scientific.

It is suggested to compare and analyze the main relevant studies that generate the key elements of PM2.5 and PM10 through more abundant literature research, and analyze the conclusions of this paper with the previous literature, so as to put forward more practical conclusions and suggestions

It could be accepted after modification. 

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer:

All suggestions were analyzed and an attempt was madeto respond to all of them, updating the manuscript.

Thank you

Flávia Silva

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the article “MONITORING AND PREDICTION OF PARTICULATE MATTER (MP2.5 AND MP10) AROUND THE IPBEJA CAMPUS” (authors: F. M. Silva, E. C. Alexandrina, A. C. Pardal, M. T. Carvalhos and E. S. Lui) has been reviewed.

 

It can be noticed that the authors revised, corrected and added additional information to the paper. The manuscript was a bit improved.

 

However, it may be concluded that only a part of the comments was taken into account.

 

There are some previous suggestions and comments:

2. The group of references “[6-11]” need a more detailed analysis in the text, or several main sources could be left.

3. Two different descriptions were merged into one: “It is also known that the deposition of particles in the respiratory tract depends on the size of the particle. Larger particles are less harmful, as they are retained in the upper respiratory system and quickly settle in the soil under the influence of gravity”.

6. What is the accuracy of measuring devices of the concentrations of PM 10 and PM2.5? For example Δc=±xx g/m³.

9. The conclusions lack concreteness. The conclusions should provide insights, recommendations and so on.

10. The boundary conditions for applying NARX should be defined in the third conclusion.

11. It is very difficult to understand what new was performed. All chapters need to be expanded.

 

Conclusion

The results are interesting, and I think this paper may be accepted for publication in the journal only after major revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

2. Suggestions were reviewed and accepted.
3. The proposed change was accepted and made.
6. This information is in the text line 122.
9. Text has been revised according to the suggestions
10. Update made to the text.
11. We appreciate the suggestions and try to adapt to the work.

Regards
Flavia Silva

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied and the authors have incorporated all comments. The article is publishable in this journal now. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your attention!

Flávia Silva

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made some revisions, but not nearly enough. This is more like an experimental report than an academic paper, with few academic contributions and few content. Because of its little theoretical content, it is just a straightforward application of widely-used statistical methods, namely the Neural networks. I am afraid the paper does not qualify for publication even if serious effort was made.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors accepted all suggestions for improvement in the work suggested by the reviewers. The work presents experimental research that is starting at the IPbeja campus in Portugal, a region that is expanding in the country, we believe that the work can be the beginning of future research and investments in the area of ​​air quality in the country. So we found partners on another continent to help us in this expansion. However, in order to move forward, we always need a start, we appreciate your reconsideration, as this work may be fundamental for future academic applications in the area of ​​research.

Regards
Flavia Silva

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the article “MONITORING AND PREDICTION OF PARTICULATE MATTER (MP2.5 AND MP10) AROUND THE IPBEJA CAMPUS” (authors: F. M. Silva, E. C. Alexandrina, A. C. Pardal, M. T. Carvalhos and E. S. Lui) has been reviewed.

 

It can be noticed that the authors revised and corrected the paper. The manuscript was a bit improved.

 

However, I still couldn't find the answer to a few questions. It would be nice to get at least a more detailed comment from the authors.

 

There are some previous suggestions and comments:

9. The conclusions should provide insights, recommendations and so on.

10. The boundary conditions for applying NARX should be defined in the conclusions.

 

Conclusion

The results are interesting, and I think this paper may be accepted for publication in the journal after the revision.