Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is well structured and interesting. I suggest these elements to increase the quality of the paper:
- Bibliography format is incorrect with respect to journal guidelines
- Reference section is not entered correctly
- Update bibliography of sections 1.2 and 1.3
- Cite this paper: Righi et al., 2013. Development and evaluation of emission disaggregation models for the spatial distribution of non-industrial combustion atmospheric pollutants (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004767?via% 3Dihub)
- Is statistical analysis and validation of simulation results available?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Bibliography format is incorrect with respect to journal guidelines 


Response 1: The bibliography was totally revised in LaTex based on the journal requirements.

 

Point 2: Reference section is not entered correctly

Response 2: The reference section was also totally revised in LaTex based on the journal requirements.

 

Point 3: Update bibliography of sections 1.2 and 1.3

Response 3: Several recently published papers are referred in sections 1.2 and 1.3.

 

Point 4: Cite this paper: Righi et al., 2013. Development and evaluation of emission disaggregation models for the spatial distribution of non-industrial combustion atmospheric pollutants (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004767?via% 3Dihub)

Response 4: The paper has been cited in section 1.1.

 

Point 5: Is statistical analysis and validation of simulation results available?

Response 5: Yes. We conducted Independent-Samples T Test and calculated standard deviation to validate the simulation results in subsection 3.2.1.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is interesting work. I recommend a major revision:

1. Conclusion part should be improved and also please add limitations of study in this part.
2. Please add discussion section and provide deep discussion for the results.
3. Improve quality of figure 5.
4. Line 427 and 432, two links should be shifted in Appendix and remove them from main text.
5. Write all equations by Matt type, now they are as picture and this is not good.
6. Provide a better map as figures 1 and 2.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Conclusion part should be improved and also please add limitations of study in this part. 


Response 1: The conclusion section was deepened, expanded and improved. The limitations of study were also added at the end of conclusion.

 

Point 2: Please add discussion section and provide deep discussion for the results

Response 2: The discussion section was added with more and deeper result discussion.

 

Point 3: Improve quality of figure 5

Response 3: The resolution of figure 5 was improved.

 

Point 4: Line 427 and 432, two links should be shifted in Appendix and remove them from main text.

Response 4: The two links were shifted to the Reference section and appeared as citation in the text.

 

Point 5: Write all equations by Matt type, now they are as picture and this is not good

Response 5: All equations were typed in LaTex based on the journal preset default type.

 

Point 6: Provide a better map as figures 1 and 2.

Response 6: The two maps were redrawn as figures 1 and 2.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is acceptable.

Author Response

Point 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved.

Response 1: The whole chapter 1 Introduction section was adjusted. Some topic sentence representing theoretical background was rephrased to make it more closely related to the paper objective. Some insignificant sentences which were not that directly related to the topic were deleted. The paragraph 2 of the chapter 1 was added to make supplementation of the background description. The whole structure is clearer and each paragraph of the chapter 1 is closely inter-related now.