Reconstructing the VOC–Ozone Research Framework Through a Systematic Review of Observation and Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hy, Nice work and important for today's climate condițions.

IT is a review, but NOx should be also considered as precursor for VOC's, at least mentioned and give arguments for relationing further only to VOC                                             

 I friendly offer the suggestion to refomulate  the title more short, comprehensive and attractive

Start with A relevant/ comprehensive.... for VOC...ETC (only a suggestion which could help to large the interest of the readers)

What about NOx? IT îs also an IMPORTANT precursor of O3?

THE ARTICLE IS A REVIEW ONE, but please use ar least 50%  of literature from last 4 years

For me all the mentioned models, from basic to super modern one , safety form, should be introduced in a more informative and comprehensive way, as the article could be useful also fo non specialists as well.

Corelate abstract with conclusions' part, to fit together.  It is important to highlight the novelty  of the results, as well th potential importance (where the conclusions could be used)   

 

Part 2.1.2 is not at all comprehensible, neither from the description, nor from the citing indications (for ex all formulas)                               

Author Response

Thank you for your professional revision opinions. Your work has significantly improved the quality and scientificity of the paper. The attachment is my response. Please review it again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of paper sustainability-3744787 «Reconstructing the VOCs–Ozone Research Framework: A Systematic Review of Observational Platforms and Modeling Paradigms»

 

The presented article is a comprehensive review of methods and tools for studying the formation and monitoring of ozone in the atmosphere. The methods and tools for studying the processes of formation and monitoring of ozone levels in the atmosphere are described in sufficient detail. An overview of the evolution of VOCs-Ozone studies over the past decades is given. The existing gaps and shortcomings in the existing VOC monitoring system and potentially promising areas for its improvement and restructuring are considered.

Within the framework of the presented study, a large volume of data has been systematized and analyzed. This work, in my opinion, will be interesting and useful both to researchers studying VOC and to a wider circle of scientists studying the atmosphere and industrial emissions, etc.

However, a number of questions arise regarding the cited sources. In a number of cases, the content of the cited work (source) does not correspond to the text related to it.

1. «All bibliographic records were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection [11].» Reference [11] this article «Assessing the Impacts of Land Use, Land Cover, and Climate Change on the Hydrological Regime of a Humid Tropical Basin». It is unclear what this has to do with the Web of Science Core Collection database.
2. «Such models help avoid overfitting near transition boundaries and are now widely applied in regions such as the PRD [75].» The article [75] talks about water, not O3, and the study location is the southern United States, not the Pearl River Delta.
3. «For instance, GEOS-Chem sensitivity analyses conducted during the ARCTAS campaign identified the aerosol uptake of HO₂ radicals as a dominant uncertainty in Arctic ozone formation, with marked seasonal divergence in precursor response patterns [80].» [80] deals with East Asia, not the Arctic.
4. Over the Tibetan Plateau, CTM simulations revealed systematic underestimations of O3 levels due to inadequate representation of NOx and OVOCs, particularly under background atmospheric conditions [81]. In [81] California, not Tibet.

Such errors are especially critical for a review article. Therefore, I recommend a thorough check of the correctness of references before the subsequent stage of review.

Author Response

Thank you for your professional revision opinions. Your work has significantly improved the quality and scientificity of the paper. The attachment is my response. Please review it again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work was reviewed, and the following questions were posed to the authors, whose expertise is crucial for complementing the information.

1. The ways to quantify VOCs and ozone formation are listed and described as they are two variables that are directly linked to each other. However, the models and algorithms in AI do not consider the effect of temperature increase due to the complexity of the system, a challenge that the authors have undoubtedly grappled with. What do the authors suggest can be done regarding this parameter (temperature) of climate change, where heat waves are increasing in various parts of the planet, particularly in large cities that are more heavily polluted?
2. According to the literature review, the centralization of the studies of these contaminants is by a small group of countries. What powerful suggestions can the authors offer to researchers from different countries who are not cited in this review to conduct a detailed study on ozone formation and its connection with the generation of VOCs?
3. The authors' review of existing works about VOCs pollution and ozone generation can lead to a specific problem of contamination in a region. However, it is possible that phenomena can be combined to provoke a global-scale phenomenon, thereby exacerbating the damage and adverse effects.

Author Response

Thank you for your professional revision opinions. Your work has significantly improved the quality and scientificity of the paper. The attachment is my response. Please review it again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reconstructing the VOCs-Ozone Research Framework: A Systematic Review of Observational Platforms and Modeling Paradigms

Overall Recommendation: Major Revisions

The manuscript provides a comprehensive review of VOC–ozone research, addressing observational platforms, modeling paradigms, and their integration. The work is timely and relevant, given the global concern over tropospheric ozone pollution. However, several issues require clarification and improvement to enhance the manuscript's rigor, clarity, and impact. Below are specific questions and concerns organized by section.

• The manuscript mentions a final dataset of 436 publications after screening. Could the authors provide a supplementary table listing key studies or a PRISMA-like flowchart to illustrate the exclusion/inclusion process?
• The classification of observational platforms (ground, airborne, satellite) is useful but lacks critical evaluation. How were platform-specific limitations (e.g., satellite vertical resolution, UAV payload constraints) weighted in the synthesis?
• The review emphasizes "recursive sensing" but does not quantify the interoperability gaps between platforms. Are there case studies where cross-platform data fusion failed due to technical or methodological mismatches?
• Ground-Based Limitations: While ground stations are praised for chemical specificity, their urban bias is noted. How might this skew regime classification in rural or transitional zones?
• AI vs. Mechanistic Models: The critique of AI models (e.g., lack of regime sensitivity) is valid. Have hybrid approaches (e.g., physics-informed neural networks) been systematically tested to address this? Provide examples.
• CTM Performance: The manuscript cites CTM errors in coarse grids (>120 km). Are there regional examples where finer resolution (<10 km) resolved ozone-precursor nonlinearities?
• Real-Time Applications: The proposed "adaptive governance" framework is aspirational. Are there operational systems (e.g., in the EU or China) currently integrating satellite-derived FNR with emission controls?
• Validation Gaps: How can models account for emerging VOC sources (e.g., biofuels, solvents) not well-represented in historical training data?
• Figure 10 (satellite platform frequency) could be enhanced by distinguishing between precursor-specific (HCHO, NO₂) and multi-gas instruments.
• Figure 12 (ozone trends in China) needs clearer labels for the y-axis (units) and statistical significance indicators.
• Define "recursive sensing" more precisely in the introduction. Is this synonymous with "data assimilation," or does it imply bidirectional feedback?
• Clarify "regime-aware modeling" (Section 4.4), does this refer to dynamic threshold adjustments or embedded chemical constraints?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your professional revision opinions. Your work has significantly improved the quality and scientificity of the paper. The attachment is my response. Please review it again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review v2 of paper sustainability-3744787 “Reconstructing the VOCs–Ozone Research Framework: A Systematic Review of Observational Platforms and Modeling Paradigms”

 

The paper has been significantly revised, and errors in the references have been corrected. However, reference [82] also does not relate to the Arctic, although it is related to "the identified aerosol uptake of HO₂ radicals".

There are a number of typos in the text, for example, the index “3” in lines 75, 82, 86, and 93 is written in line rather than as a subscript; equation number 1 is displayed incorrectly. In this regard, the paper requires some proofreading before publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer Comment 1:
Reference [82] also does not relate to the Arctic, although it is related to "the identified aerosol uptake of HO₂ radicals".

Response to Comment 1

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation. Reference [82] has been removed to maintain thematic consistency with the discussion.

 

Reviewer Comment 2:
There are a number of typos in the text, for example, the index “3” in lines 75, 82, 86, and 93 is written in line rather than as a subscript; equation number 1 is displayed incorrectly. In this regard, the paper requires some proofreading before publication.

Response to Comment 2

We thank the reviewer for identifying these issues. All typographical errors have been corrected: the index “3” in the mentioned lines has been formatted as a subscript, and equation (1) has been properly displayed. A full proofreading of the manuscript has been conducted to ensure consistency and accuracy in formatting and presentation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary corrections, and the article is now suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer Comment:
The author has made the necessary corrections, and the article is now suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Response to Comment

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and for recommending the article for publication.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx