Relationship between Wildfire Smoke and Children’s Respiratory Health in the Metropolitan Cities of Central-Chile
, Lorna Urquieta 5 and Sandra Cortes 1,4,6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Due to the climate change, the impact of wildfire on people’s health has become an important public health issue. This manuscript present a time series analysis on the relationship between wildfire and respiratory health among children in two cities in Central-Chile. Monthly health care visit data were used. Relative risk was calculated. Although the study lacks novelty and the significance is poorly articulated, the topic is relevant to the specific region where the study is focused on.
However, the study needs significant improvement in model development, data analysis, and results presentation. The manuscript is poorly structured. Sufficient graphic analysis should be conducted before fitting the model. As one of the major independent variable, no data was provided for PM10 at all. It would be useful to present PM10 summary statistics and its distribution over time. PM10 and #fires should be fitted in separate models first because of their potential substantial correlation. Subsequent model development steps were completely missing in the manuscript. The dependent variable for the multivariate model is u, which represents "the Health Emergency at time 't.'” It is totally unclear how RR was calculated, as the description was not provided at all.
The manuscript can significantly benefit from professional English editing; “Error! Reference source not found’ is everywhere in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comment 1: Due to climate change, the impact of wildfire on people’s health has become an important public health issue. This manuscript presents a time series analysis on the relationship between wildfire and respiratory health among children in two cities in Central Chile. Monthly health care visit data were used. Relative risk was calculated. Although the study lacks novelty and the significance is poorly articulated, the topic is relevant to the specific region where the study is focused on.
Response 1: We thank the reviewers for their careful review that has improved our work. We have worked on improving the structure and discussion of the article to make it more attractive to our readers.
Comment 2: However, the study needs significant improvement in model development, data analysis, and results presentation. The manuscript is poorly structured. Sufficient graphic analysis should be conducted before fitting the model. As one of the major independent variables, no data was provided for PM10 at all. It would be useful to present PM10 summary statistics and its distribution over time. PM10 and #fires should be fitted in separate models first because of their potential substantial correlation. Subsequent model development steps were completely missing in the manuscript. The dependent variable for the multivariate model is u, which represents "the Health Emergency at a time 't.'” It is totally unclear how RR was calculated, as the description was not provided at all.
Response 2: New information has been added. We have marked in yellow the changes in the Statistical analyses (lines ); also we add Figure 3 on Particulate Matter for better understand
Comment 3: The manuscript can significantly benefit from professional English editing; “Error! Reference source not found’ is everywhere in the manuscript. Response 3: We thank the reviewers for your comments. We have now revised our resubmission to improve our English editions. Despite that, we will send the last version to the MDPI services on translation.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
Wildfires, in the form of bush fires, vegetation fires, forest fires, heath and grass fires, are prevalent throughout the world. Recent high profile events in Australia in 2019 to 2020, the Amazon rainforest in Brazil in 2019 and 2020, the western United States in 2018 and 2020, and British Columbia, Canada in 2017 and 2018, have reminded the global community of the devastating effects uncontrolled fire may cause. There are on average 70 000 forest fires annually in Europe alone. Climate change may increase the risk of increasing wildfire frequency, therefore there is an urgent need to further understand the health effects and public awareness of wildfires. Wood smoke has high levels of particulate matter and toxins. Respiratory morbidity predominates, but cardiovascular, ophthalmic and psychiatric problems can also result. The wider health implications from spreading air, water and land pollution are of concern.
In a manuscript submitted by Ciciretti et al., the characterises the relationship between the occurrence of wildfires in Central-Chile and children’s respiratory health from 2010 to 2013. In the literature on the subject, the authors addressed this problem, because it concerns many countries of the world. In this respect, the work is not original. However, the manuscript submitted for evaluation provides new data for Chile.
In view of this, is an important and global problem, the results of the presented research can be useful and used to assess the health risk assessment in Chile as well as in other countries.
Comments and suggestions:
- Lines 17-20: Increase the font
- Lines 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50 53, 54, 54, 56, 89, 237, 246….: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ]; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. Check for elsewhere in the text.
- Line 59, 74 check for elsewhere in the text: Authors should correct: Line 59: „In Johnston et al. [25], the association between…”; Line 74: “A study by Reid et al. [37] of…”
- Lines 203, 212, 214 should be removed – “Error! Reference source not found”
- Line 204 – Table 1 - Correct the notation (ºC)
- Line 206: Did the authors measure these parameters themselves? - ” Source:Prepared by the authors”. In Chapter 2.2, Study Design and Data, the authors give a different piece of information (lines 147; 153-154).
- Figures 1, 2 should be corrected. Please format figure properly. Adjust the figures themselves and the size of the captions along the X and Y axes. Reduce the font size of the Figure 1 header.
- Discussion: Authors need to interlink their findings with others and available literature. The discussion should be supplemented with the latest research results; for example doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2028985; doi: 1371/4f959951cce2c; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-2007-1
- Please complete the list of references for items such as De la Barrera et al. 2018. (check other references)
- Line 328-425: References not prepared in accordance with the requirements journal (Atmosphere): - please enter the name and number of the journal in italics.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Wildfires, in the form of bush fires, vegetation fires, forest fires, heath and grass fires, are prevalent throughout the world. Recent high profile events in Australia in 2019 to 2020, the Amazon rainforest in Brazil in 2019 and 2020, the western United States in 2018 and 2020, and British Columbia, Canada in 2017 and 2018, have reminded the global community of the devastating effects uncontrolled fire may cause. There are on average 70 000 forest fires annually in Europe alone. Climate change may increase the risk of increasing wildfire frequency, therefore there is an urgent need to further understand the health effects and public awareness of wildfires. Wood smoke has high levels of particulate matter and toxins. Respiratory morbidity predominates, but cardiovascular, ophthalmic and psychiatric problems can also result. The wider health implications from spreading air, water and land pollution are of concern.
Response 1: We thank the reviewers for their careful review that has improved our work. We
Comment 2: In a manuscript submitted by Ciciretti et al., the characterises the relationship between the occurrence of wildfires in Central-Chile and children’s respiratory health from 2010 to 2013. In the literature on the subject, the authors addressed this problem, because it concerns many countries of the world. In this respect, the work is not original. However, the manuscript submitted for evaluation provides new data for Chile. In view of this, is an important and global problem, the results of the presented research can be useful and used to assess the health risk assessment in Chile as well as in other countries.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. Indeed, for us, it is essential to have baseline indicators that can be kept under surveillance in countries like Chile, with a high vulnerability to climate change and in populations at particular risk such as children.
Comment 3: Lines 17-20: Increase the font
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. According to their recommendations, all figures and tables were reviewed and edited, keeping the journal formats.
Comment 4: Lines 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50 53, 54, 54, 56, 89, 237, 246….: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ]; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. Check for elsewhere in the text.
Response 4: Thanks for your comment. According to their recommendations, all references were corrected and verified following the journal format.
Comment 4: Line 59, 74 check for elsewhere in the text: Authors should correct: Line 59: „In Johnston et al. [25], the association between…”; Line 74: “A study by Reid et al. [37] of…”
Response 4: All the citations were reviewed and were verified following the journal format.
Comment 5: Lines 203, 212, 214 should be removed – “Error! Reference source not found”
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. Several changes were made for improving the results.
Comment 6: Line 204 – Table 1 - Correct the notation (ºC)
Response 6: Thanks for your comment. The proposed changes were accepted.
Comment 7: Line 206: Did the authors measure these parameters themselves? - ” Source:Prepared by the authors”. In Chapter 2.2, Study Design and Data, the authors give a different piece of information (lines 147; 153-154).
Response 7: Several changes were made for improving the result section. All the tables show results obtained from the public data sets describe in the methods section.
Comment 8: Figures 1, 2 should be corrected. Please format figure properly. Adjust the figures themselves and the size of the captions along the X and Y axes. Reduce the font size of the Figure 1 header.
Response 8: Thanks for your comment. All the figures were corrected for a better understanding by readers.
Comment 9: Discussion: Authors need to interlink their findings with others and available literature. The discussion should be supplemented with the latest research results; for example doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2028985; doi: 1371/4f959951cce2c; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-2007-1
Response 9: We appreciate the recommended readings; of which we add two in the discussion section.
Comment 10: Please complete the list of references for items such as De la Barrera et al. 2018. (check other references).
Response 10: All the references were reviewed and were verified following the journal format.
Comment 11: Line 328-425: References not prepared under the requirements journal (Atmosphere): - please enter the name and number of the journal in italics.
Response 11: All the references were reviewed and were verified following the journal format.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 319-329: Please consider that the conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main results but a synthesis of key points and where you recommend new areas for future research.
Technical notes:
- Lines: 40, 43, 45, 49: Delete the spaces before the period.
- Table 1 and line 188: Please check again: (º−C)? It should be: (°C).
- Please standardize the record e.g.: line 250 (PM2.5 or PM10), line 39 (PM2.5 and PM10)
- Lines 354-480: In the reference list use Abbreviated Journal Name.
Author Response
Comment 1: Please consider that the conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main results but a synthesis of key points and where you recommend new areas for future research.
Response 1: We thank you for your comments. Conclusions were improved according to the comments.
Comment 2: Lines: 40, 43, 45, 49: Delete the spaces before the period.
Response 2: Suggested changes were made.
Comment 3: Table 1 and line 188: Please check again: (º−C)? It should be: (°C).
Response 3: Suggested changes were mad
Comment 4: Please standardize the record e.g.: line 250 (PM2.5 or PM10), line 39 (PM2.5 and PM10).
Response 4: We thank your comment. We have now revised all the manuscript and corrected the records.
Comment 5: Lines 354-480: In the reference list use Abbreviated Journal Name.
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. There was a mistake in the format style that was corrected.
Comment 1: Please consider that the conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main results but a synthesis of key points and where you recommend new areas for future research.
Response 1: We thank you for your comments. Conclusions were improved according to the comments.
Comment 2: Lines: 40, 43, 45, 49: Delete the spaces before the period.
Response 2: Suggested changes were made.
Comment 3: Table 1 and line 188: Please check again: (º−C)? It should be: (°C).
Response 3: Suggested changes were mad
Comment 4: Please standardize the record e.g.: line 250 (PM2.5 or PM10), line 39 (PM2.5 and PM10).
Response 4: We thank your comment. We have now revised all the manuscript and corrected the records.
Comment 5: Lines 354-480: In the reference list use Abbreviated Journal Name.
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. There was a mistake in the format style that was corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
