A Study on Indoor Particulate Matter Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work is not clear if and how this study is timely, important and novel. On the other hand, too many details are given as findings and thus the highlights of the research are not clearly underlined.
Introduction and discussion section must be improved by more comprehensive quotes from the timely literature.
Conclusions: Please clarify the conclusions. In their present form conclusions are rather a summary. Moreover, this section is too long.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments regarding the article entitled A Study on Indoor Particulate Matter Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions. All observations were thoroughly addressed and the paper was rewritten in accordance also, with help from an English professor from my university. A response for each comment is addressed point by point further on in the document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled " A Study on Indoor Particulate Matters Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions " could be of interest for but the current form is not suitable for publication and maybe more suitable for International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
In Materials and Methods just the measurement campaign is explained. What is the added value in the method?
What is the novelty of the study?
Literature background is limited.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments regarding the article entitled A Study on Indoor Particulate Matter Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions. All observations were thoroughly addressed and the paper was rewritten in accordance also, with help from an English professor from my university. A response for each comment is addressed point by point further on in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the manuscript
“ A Study on Indoor Particulate Matters Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions”
In this paper authors presented a study on indoor particulate matters variation based on count and sizes and in relation to meteorological conditions. What is the scientific aspect of this article? It should be better presented and described. I do not see the scientific aspect in this version of the article.
In line 38 authors are writing: “A clearer view on particulate matters circulation could represent an aid to the problems exposed earlier…” What are these problems? What is the aim of the study? The novelty of the article should be written more clearly. Introduction should be expanded and present a thorough literature review.
Last but not least, the section “Conclusion” is currently a summary. Please add the discussion section. Authors should refer to the literature mentioned in the introduction section. It is necessary to compare the performance of the proposed methodology with alternatives.
English language minor spell check required.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments regarding the article entitled A Study on Indoor Particulate Matter Variation in Time Based on Count and Sizes and in Relation to Meteorological Conditions. All observations were thoroughly addressed and the paper was rewritten in accordance also, with help from an English professor from my university. A response for each comment is addressed point by point further on in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been greatly improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved and now is suitable for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The quality of the article has improved significantly. The authors responded to the reviewer's doubts. The article may be accepted in this form.
