A Study on a Health Impact Assessment and Healthcare Cost Calculation of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Residents under PM2.5 and O3 Pollution
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, this is a good Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, measuring the health costs of Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) and Ozone (O3) using BenMAP.
However, the following observations may improve the quality of the article:
1. To make the analysis more comparable on a global scale, all monetary values should be expressed in USD.
2. A new scenario with the World Health Organization (WHO) reference concentration should be incorporated into the analysis. Limiting the analysis using only China's Ambient Air Quality Standard (GB3095-2012) limits the analysis to a very local context. WHO recommends limit values of 15 mg/m3(24 hours) and 5 mg/m3 (annual) for the pollutant PM2.5, while for O3 it recommends 100 mg/m3 (8 hours) and 60 mg/m3 (peak season). See: WHO (2021). WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Executive summary. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034433
3. Including a table with the WHO and China reference concentrations for both PM2.5 and O3 is recommended.
4. In all tables (in the Title), specify when dealing with people and money.
5. Summarize the tables in the "Results and Conclusions" section (Tables 7-12) to make them more manageable. It is recommended that only summary tables be included in the text; composite tables should be sent to the appendices section.
6. Expand the discussion in the Introductory section with HIAs of regions in other countries, e.g., Mexico. See and include the reference: Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 10782; https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910782.
7. In 2.1.6, the exposure-response coefficient (b) should be more clearly worded; it is confusing, and the role of foundational authors, such as Pope et al., is not included.
8. It is suggested to compare the VSL of the studied regions with OECD countries and not only region with region in China.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper is well written, only with small details in English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting and could be of great importance in the creation of development policy. The authors showed the effects of air pollution on the health of the population and demonstrated the economic consequences.
The article can be an important factor in improving public policies.
I suggest that you still think about the conclusions - they are very cautious, general and even vague. Perhaps it would be worth proposing specific measures for the elimination of pollution sources, transport policy or spatial layout?
I would also suggest taking a broader look at the results of global research on external costs - I miss a larger share of publications from the USA or Europe (and so far, it is Europe that is leading the way in measuring external costs and active environmental and climate policy).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer comments
The authors have done an interesting work related to health impacts assessment and cost calculation of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei residents under PM2.5 and O3 pollution. In general, the structure and body of the manuscript is good. But, the readability of the article needs to be improved. Moreover, I am somewhat confused about article, hoping to discuss with the authors.
1、The language of this paper needs to be improved.
2、The introduction of this paper need to be improved. The introduction part is not in place for the research summary of the current situation at home and abroad. At present, it is only listed and not summarized. It is recommended to classify the existing research.
3、I don 't quite understand the meaning of lines 112-114 being here.
4、Although Figure 1 is only a schematic diagram, Figure 1 lacks a compass, legend, and scale. In addition, Figure 1 can consider the different colors of different cities to distinguish.
5、In 2.1.1, my concern is not the number of sites per city, but the year of PM2.5 and O3 concentration used in the paper, the resolution ( hourly, daily average ), the valid data of the data, and QA/QC.
6、Lines 163-171 introduces the advantages of the BENMAP model and suggests that it can be incorporated into the introduction.
7、2.2 Do all the parameters in the formula have no unit ?
8、There are a large number of tables in the article, and the readability of the article is poor. It is recommended to convert the data of the table into a graph.
9、The legend in Fig.4 is suggested to be classified according to billion yuan instead of high and low.
10、Line 56:“…2035[11]…”lack period.
11、The size of different forms in the text is inconsistent, please unify according to the requirements of the magazine.
12、It is suggested that the first paragraph of the conclusion part of the paper should be segmented again, and one conclusion should be displayed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors established a health impact assessment model and calculated the number of people affected by PM2.5 and O3 exposure using the health impact function in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) region.Furthermore,The willingness to pay (WTP) and Cost of illness (COI) methods were used to estimate the health costs of two pollutants to residents from 2018 to 2021.It proposes new insights and ideas for the policy suggestions for PM2.5 and O3 control in the BTH region.This article is clear in thought,the model is accuracy, and has certain reference value. I would suggest accepting it after the following minor concerns are addressed.
1. A literature review of Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) is necessary.
2. On page 4, line 143,there is a typos and grammar error.
3.In section 2.2.1,the rationale for constructing a linear logarithmic function remains unclear in the current manuscript.
4.In section 3.2.3,I suggest that the reason why the health cost caused by ozone exposure is far lower than the health cost of PM2.5 should be discussed in the section.
5. In the current manuscript, several tables are presented; however, it is noted that the concentration of pollutants in the city, for which no data is available, falls below the Level I standard.Clarification is required on the impact of this on subsequent calculations.
6. In conclusion, the collaborative research on PM2.5 and O3 should be described.
7.I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language in the submitted article is generally good, but there are a few areas that could be improved to enhance its readability and clarity.
1. In some sections, the author might consider using more specific or varied terminology to enhance the precision and richness of their language.
2. the article could benefit from more careful proofreading to eliminate any typos or inconsistencies in spelling or formatting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Standardize the acronyms PM2.5 and O3 throughout the document, either with normal typography or subscript, but all the same.
2. Correctly write reference 19, which should be:
Becerra-Pérez, L.A.; Ramos-Álvarez, R.A.; DelaCruz, J.J.; García-Páez, B.; Páez-Osuna, F.; Cedeño-Laurent, J.G.; Boldo, E. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact of PM2.5 Exposure on Health Status in Three Northwestern Mexican Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910782
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors After the author 's revision, the paper has been greatly improved. I suggest that the paper can be accepted, but individual small problems such as ( subscript, etc. ) format, still need to be modified, depending on the views of the editor teacher.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
