Prediction of the Concentration of Particulate Matter 2.5 Using Virtual Sensors Applied to Valle de Aburrá
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Obtaining and collecting data on air pollution is very important, as it is the basis for its prediction and monitoring. A valuable part of the article are the obtained dependencies of particulate matter in time, which have a practical aspect. In addition, the model used shows the continuity of adaptation to climatic conditions. Below are some comments and suggestions:
1. In the introduction, information on several IT systems - databases that are used to collect large amounts of data on air pollution should be added, for example: EUROSTAT; AIRBASE. This is quite important information, especially at different times of the seasons;
2. Line 98, in the sentence "...In the chapter..." the second word is missing;
3. Line 108, "...In Figure 1, you can see a map of the Valle de Aburrá..." should be replaced with: Figure 1 presents...;
4. The second chapter is quite short, it should be extended with information on elevation ordinates (minimum and maximum values - mark on the presented map). In addition, an elevation map for the analyzed area would be useful;
5. In the subsection 3.1, figure 1, it should have a different numbering, figure 2. Moreover, for better legibility of the drawing, I would suggest redrawing the outline itself with blue points marked and adding a drawing scale;
6. In the fourth chapter, it is necessary to write what limitations exist - boundary conditions with the proposed algorithm, or only meteorological parameters. In addition, it should be specified how many times the procedure is normalized - whether it is conducted up to some limited value;
7. In chapter five, the numbering of drawings should be corrected. The “seg” unit should be corrected (Figure 2, Wind speed);
8. Figures 3-12, a description should be added on the vertical axis;
9. Line 370, it should be corrected the subsection number;
10. There are illegible digits below pattern 10;
11. For the validation of the results presented in chapter five, the jump (significant) increase in the value in the first 25 hours should be explained (Figures 9-12);
12. Two/three sentences should be added in the conclusions regarding the time needed to implement the proposed model for Valle de Aburrá conditions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject matter of the paper is interesting. After carefully reading the content of the manuscript, the following points were formulated.
- very poor list of literature - only 16 items in the list of literature;
- there is no justification based on the literature review in terms of identifying a research gap and justifying the novelty in the presented issue;
- due to the worldwide coverage of the paper, the country in which the title area of Valle de Aburrá is located should be indicated; otherwise, the article is of national scope only;
- line 98: "In the chapter, a review is shown regarding the location and climatic phenomenon of the Valle de Aburrá" - the chapter name is missing (Chapter 2);
- formulas (1) and (2) and lines 205-210: no explanation of variables: "k", "x_k+1";
- formulas (3)-(9) and lines 220-260: not all variables in formulas are explained;
- formulas in lines 271, 279, 288 - consecutive numbering is missing;
- Figure 2: this figure seems redundant as it does not show comparisons with particulate matter;
- Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.: it would be much more convenient to compare each graph of a meteorological variable with a graph of particulate matter - of course, use two vertical scales - separate for the metoe variable and the particulate matter variable;
- section 3.2.1 - the presentation of models in an analytical form and the modeling process are missing;
- separate sections are missing: "Literature review", "Meterial and methods", "Discussion";
- there is no indication of further research work;
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article entitled “Prediction of the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 using virtual sensors applied to the Valle de Aburrá”, presents a 2.5 particulate matter prediction system for the Valle de Aburrá, which is based on the state space model designed with real data from 2019, plus a Kalman filter to improve the prediction.
Considering that nowadays, pollution is a significant problem representing a threat to public health, the subject of this work is utterly interesting.
The methodology which is followed in this work is adequately defined and validated permitting other researchers to reproduce certain aspects of the results. Additionally, the methodology analysis, as well as the assessment of the results are enriched with an efficient number of properly presented figures, tables and charts.
Some issues that need attendance are as following:
1. Significantly more references of the current literature should be included in order to elaborate the state of the art on the subject of study (the number of 16 references is quite low for a research article)
2. Attention should be paid in the numbering of the Figures inside the text (i.e. Line 335). In addition, it would be for the benefit of the readership if the elaboration of the Figures was preceding their illustration.
3. The conclusions of the research and their association with the results need to be further defined. The results must be thoroughly interpreted in perspective of the working hypotheses, and the findings of the research as well as to their implications in the broadest context possible. Moreover, some details about future directions should be pointed point out.
4. The paper is well-structured in general and written in appropriate English language according to the standards of the Journal, however some minor spell-checking is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved significantly.
The authors should give a clear indication in the conclusion (Line 486-488) that the results are only for Valle de Aburra. Other places may have different correlation.
There are some minor points that should be corrected:
Line 91: ... thermal investment ... -> thermal inversion
Line 137: ... 1,300 m ... 2,800 m ...
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors' explanations and the correction of the text are satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
