Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract offers a concise summary of the research, yet it could be enhanced by emphasizing the study's significance, especially regarding how permeable paving might contribute to water quality enhancement and ecological benefits on urban thoroughfares.

2. To ensure the introduction is current and relevant, it is advised that the authors incorporate the most recent background information that encapsulates the evolving trends in urbanization.

3. The article mentions the sampling site on Kane Drive. For clarity and to ensure the generalizability of the findings, it is recommended that the representativeness of the site be confirmed and articulated.

4. In Subsection 2.2, which outlines the sample collection, it would be beneficial to provide a more granular explanation of the sampling methodology.

5. The statistical analysis in Subsection 2.4 utilizes the arithmetic mean of three instantaneous samples collected during each storm. It would be insightful to discuss the rationale behind choosing the arithmetic mean and to explore the potential of alternative statistical methods such as ANOVA or ANCOVA.

6. Table 3, frequently referenced in the third part of the article, appears to be absent from the text. It would be prudent to verify if there is a mislabeling in the serial number or if the content is indeed missing.

7. Regarding the average values of BOD and E.coli for different types of pavements mentioned in lines 266-268 and 272-276, it would be helpful to understand how these values were derived.

8. A more in-depth discussion on how the study's results relate to current environmental standards and the practical implications of porous pavements would add substantial value to the manuscript.

9. Elaborating on the study's limitations would greatly benefit the manuscript. It would be informative to discuss the long-term impacts and constraints of installing porous asphalt overlay and full-depth porous asphalt on major traffic arteries in urban settings.

10. In the conclusions, where it is stated that "Overall, the reduction of pollutants in runoff was significant, and almost all water quality standards were met with both the porous overlay and full-depth porous pavements," it would be impactful to distill the key findings to underscore the effectiveness of these permeable paving solutions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper’s subject is interesting because the reduction of pollution is one of the most important tasks that needs to be done worldwide in the following years. The paper is well-organized and the results are thoroughly presented. Nevertheless, the authors should consider a couple of suggestions before accepting the paper.

Line 123: The quality of Figure 1 can be improved. Important places (roads, rivers) can have their names bolded to make it easier to locate the site.

Line 165: Please revise “This equation assumes that the influent to the porous pavement was similar to”

Line 213: The first use of an acronym should be accompanied by its extended version, e.g. TSS, DEHP.

Line 221: Figure 3 – The exact values corresponding to the TSS particles and turbidity should be indicated on the graphs, for each type of pavement.

 

Figures 4, 5 and 6 – The exact values corresponding to the measured parameters should be indicated on the graphs, for each type of pavement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised all the issues raised in the previous manuscript to the level of a published paper.