Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript demonstrates an analysis of the effect of vertical wind shear on PM2.5 in Changsha and Jingmen, and the pollutant sources are simulated using WRF-FLEXPART. A 5-year wintertime observations and simulations over 2016–2020 are shown. This study provides the evidence that PM2.5 pollution in THB was affected by long-distance transport with different features at upstream and downstream sites. The algorithm is explained clearly, the results are credible and well-discussed. This study is a further study of previous work in ACP (Ref 39), and will improve the understanding of air pollutant source receptor relationship in air quality changes with regional transport of air pollutants in central China. This manuscript can be published on the Remote Sensing, but the authors still need to make some minor revisions to the manuscript.

 

General comments

a.      The vertical wind data in JM is under 1000 m, as far as I know, generally, the boundary layer in China is higher than 1000 m, such as in Anhui, will this affect the accuracy of the analysis results?

b.      In this work, is the WRF- FLEXPART uses the same configuration as Ref. 39?

c.      In Ref. 32. The effect of wind shear on PM2.5 in Beijing was studied. This manuscript uses more data and with different simulation methods, but these two studies only use RWPs. Are you considering using lidar for atmospheric research?

 

 

Specific comments (1)    Line 34, abbreviation of THB should be explained first.

(2)    Line 132, “Where”.

(3)    Figure 4, the wind speed seems begin from 30 m, what is the blind area for the measurement? The numbers in the figures are too small to be read.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an exhaustive study on the impact of air circulation and air quality in a region of central China, using wind radar, radiosonde data and WRF-based modelling chain. The results are quite interesting, though circumscribed to the region of study and not easily extrapolable to other scenarios. However, the results are interesting and the paper deserves publication.

Just a few minor adjustements deserve attention prior publication:

General comments: chech english consistencies

Specific comments:

-  figure 2: error bars or box plot would make more clear the consistency of the averages (at least on the top plots). My suggestion is also to use different markers to facilitate readability on B&W prints.

- figure 3: the colored maps do not show a really clear pattern, or at least it comes in mind to check if the number of data is significant for each point. Please, provide some information about the significance of data.

-figure 11: again, box plot or error bars would make easier to check the significance of the average profiles.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, please find attached my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have fully met the expectations of the reviewer.