Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I hope you all are good in health. Please modify your mauscript as suggested. It is dire need of the day to switch on clean and green energy to mitigate the air pollution and minimize the medical cost of exposomes.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Although the article concerns an interesting topic, in my opinion, it requires many corrections.

First, the admission is too long. Target is not very precise; as it assumes an explanation of the relationship between exposure to HAP (PM2.5) and elevated blood pressure in different fuel groups (contamination 70
SF and LPG for cooking). First, authors should check if such a relationship exists and then think about understanding the relationship.
It is unclear to me how the authors intend to achieve the goal.
I am not convinced by the research authors proposed.
It may be in the manuscript, but it's written in a rather convoluted way. I propose simplifying the article.
There are too many generalities in it and too few deliberate analyzes.
The conclusions are very general and predictable.
Many of the records are quite sloppy, for example, the sign at BMI, no units, and different notations of PM2.5. In general, it is very difficult to figure out what the authors had the idea and what they managed to discover. The tables do not help to understand it.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my objections. The corrections made improved the readability of the manuscript.

I believe that the description in Fig. 2 still needs correction. Sounds incorrect: average systolic reading, similar to the average diastolic reading. The word "reading" should be removed.

I also recommend modifying the conclusions.
This is a description of the results, not conclusions.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf