Urban Particulate Matter Hazard Mapping and Monitoring Site Selection in Nablus, Palestine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Include more refences from similar studies across the globe.  It will be interesting to compare.  Urban aerosls (PM2.5 concentrations are of interest due to human health. There are many studies, but agree this is a needed study in this part of the world.  

Also check format of references.

Some grammatical/English errors ....

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors developed a program to estimate the hazard of particulate matter in Nablus using GIS platform. Based on the calculated hazard index, they employed several low-cost sensors to monitor the PM2.5 concentrations in selected representing sites. The purpose of this study was well demonstrated, but the method and outcome description need to be improved.

 

1. The authors used "hazard index" in the manuscript. This term has its specific meaning, relating to hazard quotient defined by USEPA. I suggest the authors change this term.

2. How did the authors set the Weight and Influence in Table 1. Some explanation or references are needed. 

3. In Table 2, site Jerzim and Junaid with hazard index 1 had higher PM2.5 concentrations than site NNU. The authors should discuss on this (actually it's about the uncertainty of your method).

4. I suggest the authors present some comparison between their hazard index distribution and satellite observtions, such as AOD (aerosol optical depth) distribution, AI (aerosol index) distribution, etc. 

5. Line 69, the comma before [21] was in the wrong place.

6. Line 73 and Line 131, the parenthesis are unnecessary.

7. Line 74, the first 3 sentences were repetition of the concent in Line 49-51.

8. Line 137, "no 4" should be "the 4th class".

9. "PM values" should be "PM concentrations".

10. Line 185, according to the latest standard, the WHO guideline of 24-h average PM2.5 is 15 ug/m3.

11. Fix the unnecessary formatting, such as the superscript (GeoMOLG), (Meteoblue).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1.     The low-cost sensors were used to valid the air pollution hazard map, not directly for mapping. The title needs further correction to prevent misleading readers.

 

2.     The literature review is very incomplete and lacks detailed analysis and discussion of existing work closely related to air pollution mapping, such as aerosol-based and other multi-source big data-based methods for air pollution mapping.

 

3.     Table 1: What is the scientific basis for the definition of these weights?

 

4.     How does the spatial distribution of pollution sources affect the mapping results? In particular, the distribution of quarries is relatively concentrated.

 

5.     What type of particulate matter does this article map? The sensors measure the PM2.5. How about the simulation method?

 

6.     This mapping method is too simplified. Air pollution is highly dynamic, and it is difficult to simulate it based only on the static spatial location of emission sources. More dynamic factors should be considered, such as dynamic traffic conditions on the road network.

 

7.     The technique of inversion of air pollution with aerosols is well established in the absence of adequate monitoring stations. What are the advantages of this work compared to it?

 

8.     The article does not provide a quantitative evaluation of the fit of the air pollution simulation results to the sensor results.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more comment.

Author Response

The reviewer have no more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

As authors stated, the low-cost sensors were not used to draw the maps. So why you said “mapping using Low cost sensors” in the title? This is misleading to the reader. I'm not saying that the sensors are not important, but your title sends a message that is inconsistent with the paper. Also, your title is not generalized. The mapping is only the beginning part of this paper. What about the choice of monitoring locations, how to reflect?

 

There is still no literature review on existing air pollution mapping work based on multi-source geographic big data, and no necessary quantitative experimental comparisons. So there is no way to judge the advantages of the proposed method.

 

Authors said that the objective of this methodology is to select the optimum locations of monitoring sites. So how do you verify the selected locations are the optimum. Please give both theoretical and quantitative proofs.

 

What particulate matter is the simulated map for? Please clarify in the full paper? And explain why these source data are responding to that type of particulate matter and not others?

 

Without quantitative evaluation, how do you claim that there is a good match between the hazard intensity and PM2.5 concentrations? And how do you prove that your method is better than existing methods?

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf