Harmonisation in Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Approaches to Assess Toxic Consequences in the Neighbourhood of Industrial Facilities^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I deem that the manuscript can be accepted now as it has been revised well.

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript entitled "Harmonization in atmospheric dispersion modelling approaches to assess toxic consequences in the neighbourhood of industrial facilities" represent an interesting research.

The manuscript is well presented.

The Introduction, methods and results and discussion parts are well written.

The Conclusion supported the obtained results.

I have a minor remark. Figures 4, 5 and 9 are not visible.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:  I have a minor remark. Figures 4, 5 and 9 are not visible.

Response 1:

Thank you for your remark.

The authors have redesigned the figures 4, 5 and 9, enhancing their visibility.

You will see the redesigned figures 4,5 and 9 in the revised paper (see the attached file).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has comprehensively evaluated the models for the densely-built areas based on a large-scale INERIS ammonia experimental release. There is a noticeable workload behind the manuscript, but the paper's organization needs to be improved substantially.

1. Most of the content describes the well-known principle of the existing models, which are neither novel nor related to the input harmonization topic in the title. It is suggested that the authors re-organize the manuscript and add more details on the input harmonization topic in the title. 

2. The meaning of harmonization is not quite clear. Is this a module that can handle the input data and convert them to files for different ATD models?

3. There are many citation errors throughout the paper, which appears that the reference tool did not work well. The authors should correct these mistakes. 

4. The evaluation is comprehensive, but it is not clearly related to the harmonization part. Instead, it is more like a model intercomparison. The authors should explain the relationship between these results and harmonization topic. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript focuses on harmonizing input data for Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion (AT&D) modelling as mentioned in the abstract. I think that it is a very meaningful study. However, I found it is organized confusedly so that it can’t be understood well. What are the factors behind these discrepancies? Is it related to harmonizing input data? What are the problems that the unharmonized input data leads to? The author should clarify how to harmonize the input data in this study? I strongly advise that the authors reorganize the manuscript according to why, how and what relating to harmonizing input data.

Specific comments:

(1)   1.1 Atmospheric dispersion accidents

The title should be revised. Air pollution accidents?

Chernobyl, 1986. Fukushima, 2011. should be referred.

(2)   Line 38-52, Please make the content related to the topic more closely.

(3)   Line 58-60, Please clarify some reasons behind these discrepancies. Is one of them related to harmonizing input data？

(4)   I think context of AT&D model uses is not important for readers. Instead, the authors should describe the specific input data for AT&D models. I don’t know if Line 109-112 is the description about the input data, but I can ensure they are not enough.

(5)   Line 81-85, I agree that source term is typically unknown, but what is the difference of the wind? Please clarify it.

(6)   What does Figure 1 mean?

(7)   2.1 Background about theoretical approaches, It is recommended to summarize their input data.

(8)   2.2 From my stand, Gaussian model is used in a simplified scene or an early emission stage in which lacking sufficient meteorological data or for a rapid assessment since its assumptions are those, such as uniform continuous turbulent flow field…… When there are available sufficient meteorological data, more sophisticated models can provide better results though it will spend more calculation time. In this case, what are the reasons for harmonizing these models with different purposes.

(9)   Through the section 2, I don’t yet understand how the authors make the harmonization between the models.

(10) Table 4 lists the input data for SLAB model and CFD approach. However, how are they harmonized?

(11) Line 537-539, descriptions for Figure 9, the study should be considered as an essential stage for validate the use of CFD model in the context of regulatory studies …… Therefore, the manuscript seems to be for a validation for CFD model application, and does it have to do with the harmonizing?

(12) Figure 9, which is better of the results from FDS and Code_saturne model? And why？What does this result mean? I can’t understand the idea of the authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The present work "Harmonization in atmospheric dispersion modelling approaches to assess toxic consequences in the neighbourhood of industrial facilities " represent an interest research in the context of citizens' protection against industrial hazards .

Some remarks

1. In the Section Context of AT&D Model uses some references and literature data are required.

2. The text inserted in Figure 1 is unclear. Use a higher size for the words.

3. insert equation numbers.

4. Figure 3 is unclear.

5. The atmospheric conditions were evaluated for which period?

6. Some "see Error! Reference source not found.' are appeared in text. Corrected all.

7. put standard errors where is necessary.

8. Authors stated that "This study should be considered as an essential stage for validate the use of CFD model in the context of regulatory studies where the need of assess obstructed environment will be of primary importance. " Give a explanation.

9. In the introduction part must be pointed the novelty of this study.

10. in conclusion part "In this study" was repeated. Reformulated.