Aerosols as Vectors for Contaminants: A Perspective Based on Outdoor Aerosol Data from Kuwait
, Nazima Habibi 1, Scott W. Fowler 2,†, Montaha Behbehani 1, Bondi Gevao 3, Mohammad Faizuddin 4 and Aysun Ugur Gorgun 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As a review, listing the results from other researchers is not enough, it needs to provide deeper explanations or insights. Unfortunately, this review does not meet this.
Detailed:
(1)There are no description about two sampling sites (Line 93). In this case, it is difficult to compare them.
(2) The position of TSP in Figure 3 is confusing, either from coarse particle to fine particle, or from fine particle to coarse. The same to Figure 4.
(3) Line 85-91, you mentioned “Studies have indicated that most 210Po activity is associated with fine and ultrafine aerosol particles.” But in your study, line 105-106, “There was no significant spatial and temporal difference in 210Po concentration in aerosols in three particulate size classes”. So please explain the reasons for the different results.
(4) Line 193, six size fractions are mentioned but only five size fractions are shown in Figure 5.
Author Response
We are thankful for your diligent review and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript taking into consideration the suggestions. A pointwise reply is attached for your kind perusal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors summarized the work on the study of aerosols in Kuwait. Some attention is also paid to other territories. However, the problem solved in the manuscript is not clear. There are also several comments.
Abstract.
Lines 15-17: Specify why the introduction indicates the reduction of Air Quality Guidelines.
Line 19: Please decipher “PAHs, PBDEs.”
I would like to see more results based on the analysis of the literature. What are the conclusions?
1. Introduction
Line 32: “nitrogen dioxide (N2O)”, specify the chemical formula of dioxide (NO2).
Line 51: The abbreviation PM has already been deciphered. There is no need for repetition.
Lines 55-60: The sentences repeat each other. Please paraphrase.
In the introduction, little attention is paid to the description of the problem that the literature review is aimed. It is not entirely clear why the review is given for Kuwait and the surrounding areas (besides the fact that there are some of the highest concentrations of aerosols in the atmosphere).
2. Radionuclides
The reason for the data analysis on radionuclides is unclear. Why the authors focused specifically on polonium and lead?
Most of the section describes the results of just one study of radionuclides in Kuwait aerosols [64]. Why focus on this study only? Are there any other data on the activity of radionuclides in aerosols from Kuwait and adjacent territories? What conclusion can be made from the presented material? It is unclear from the results where the samples were taken and what territories they characterize (which city, the specifics of the city, etc.).
Tables 1 and 2: why are they listed in the section on radionuclides? Table data is not discussed.
3. Organics
3.1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Analyses
Methods for determining PAHs in aerosol samples from a specific study are described in great detail, such details are not needed, and they are in the already published work (lines 149-186). Pay more attention to summarizing results rather than describing the research methods of other scientific groups.
Line 198: “repairable range.” Please clarify.
Figures 5 and 6: What is the data source?
It is unclear in which territories the distribution of PAHs in aerosols were studied (which part of Kuwait), what are the sources of PAHs in this territory, etc.
3.2. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Line 221: “contaminats” -> “contaminants”.
Lines 235-241: The results of the indoor dust study are given, although outdoor dust is stated in the title of the manuscript. Please clarify.
3.4. Microplastics in aerosols
Line 291: The abbreviation PAH has already been deciphered earlier.
What is the purpose of this section if there is no data on microplastics in aerosols from Kuwait?
4. Microbes
Figure 7: what research results are used to draw this figure?
5. Discussion
Lines 408-414 are more suitable for the introduction.
Lines 423-431: repeat with the introduction.
Lines 436-437: What could be the reason for this?
The section practically does not discuss the results, more like a very brief conclusion formulation. What is the main result of the work done on the literature analysis? What problems have been identified, and what are the ways for further research?
Thus, the manuscript requires major revisions.
Author Response
We are thankful for your kind review and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript, and a pointwise reply is appended for your kind consideration. We hope you will find it improved now.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: atmosphere-2158552. Title: Aerosols as vectors for Contaminants: A review of Kuwaits’ outdoor aerosols.
This study shows a mini review of the information generated in Kuwait on contaminants associated with dust in different size fractions. This study presents a review of the contaminants associated with atmospheric aerosol, which is reported to have a significant effect on human health and on regional and global climatic changes.
Comments:
1. Please include in the abstract the methodology used to conduct this literature review.
2. Please include quantitative information in the abstract to support the main results of the literature review.
3. Please include in the abstract the timeline on which the review was performed.
4. Please visualize in the introduction the practical usefulness of this study.
5. The last paragraph of the introduction needs to be supported with references.
6. The introduction should include information regarding the mechanisms involved in the phenomenon of absorption and adsorption of pollutants to suspended particles.
7. Please include in the introduction information associated with public health risk from the air pollutants considered in this study.
8. In the introduction indicate the differences between particulate matter and aerosols. Are they the same?
9. This article should include a methodology chapter with the following information: databases consulted, detection, consultation and obtaining of information, criteria for inclusion or exclusion of information, sample size, and analysis of information (e.g., statistical analysis).
10. Starting with section 2, I suggest presenting Kuwait's specific results and then discussing them in relation to other studies. Currently, it is presented in the opposite way.
11. In the chapter on materials and methods, a figure with the location of the study site should be included. Additionally, I suggest including a brief description of the study site (climate, relief, covers, etc.).
12. Throughout the text the numbering of the references must be verified. Apparently there are errors.
13. In the presentation of the results, a comparative analysis with other studies at the global level is necessary. This for the pollutant concentrations detected. Are they higher or lower? Quantify.
14. Please avoid short paragraphs. These must have an integral development. For example, see L126-128 and L317-320.
15. Currently, this manuscript is built to have a local impact. The journal searches for articles with a regional or global impact. I suggest improving this aspect with the inclusion of globally relevant information.
16. Please include relevant references in the discussion of results. This is to support the discussion of results.
17. Significantly improve the discussion of results.
18. The conclusions are very general and do not correspond specifically to this study. For example, heavy metals were considered in this study. Which ones unlike Pb were considered?
19. Significantly improve conclusions.
20. Please include a spatiotemporal analysis of the detected information. In this type of study it is important to report these trends.
21. Please consider in this study a multivariate statistical analysis to visualize possible relationships between the pollutants considered.
22. Please include the main limitations identified during the development of this study.
23. Please include future research lines.
24. Please include final section with all abbreviations used in this article.
Author Response
We are thankful for your kind review and suggestions. The manuscript is revised hope you will find it acceptable now. A pointwise reply is also appended for your kind perusal.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors fully responded to my comments and made the required corrections to the text. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest accepting the article.
