Methodology for Mobile Toxics Deterministic Human Health Risk Assessment and Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the manuscript entitled “Methodology for Mobile Toxics Deterministic Human Health Risk Assessment and Case Study” present a study related to the air pollution effects on human health, with reference to benzene, formaldehyde, and benzo(a)pyrene emitted from mobile sources. The study is conducted in three points Saint Paul - Ramsey Health Center, Anderson Office Building, and Minnesota State Capitol on different categories: urban resident adult, urban resident child, farmer adult, and farmer child.

In this type of research, the assessment of human health risk requires the identification, compilation, and integration of information on the health hazards of a chemical, human exposure to the chemical, and the relationships between exposure, dose, and adverse effects. Acquisition of information appropriate to an exposure scenario is a fundamental challenge in risk assessment. They present a methodology that estimates the total cumulative human health risk posed by the aggregated exposures of on-road mobile sources.  The work shown in this research is complex and presents information that is important taking into account the impact of air pollution on humans.

The manuscript presents an interesting and topical topic and is well-presented and structured.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We appreciate the time you took to review our paper and for your positive feedback.  Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a new methodology by which better estimate factors that significantly affect population health and ecology. 

The paper is difficult to read because it is not written according to the template and there are many abbreviations and acronyms.

In the text, reference  should be placed in square brackets in the form of a number.

A list of abbreviations and acronyms should be added to increase readability.

At line 325: ”This section is composed of two parts„. What section is it about? This statement is in the middle of the "3.Methodology" section.

 Finally, I reiterate that many sections of the paper need to be reorganized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents a methodology to assess the health risk due to air pollution. This methodology is well established and has been extensively used in the United States. However, the manuscript exhibits new optimized and novel aspects for applying this methodology. The manuscript is well written and well structured, and deserves to be published after responding to some concern:

1- The authors need to provide more information about the performance of the WRF model output for the year 2011 like using some statistical indicators to show that the model is performing well and can be used in the study

·       2- Lines 595 - 596: the authors need to provide the reference for the inhalation rates

·       3 - Lines 854 – 859: the authors need to adjust the numbering of the bullet points

·       4 - Lines 870 – 873: the authors need to assess the model performance using statistical indicators

·       5 - The authors need to add a section presenting the strength points and limitations of the methodology proposed

·       6- The authors need to provide the Aermod model parameterization (sources, etc.) as supplementary information for the scientific community to be able to duplicate such study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors followed my recommendations. In general, the paper was improved and the writing more clear. I think it can be acceptable in this form.