Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors present report of the acidic aerosols measurements in the Poás Volcano national park (at 3 locations over a few months).

Despite this is not really scientific study, I believe that information provided is important as also indicated by authors : "Currently there is a scarce number of measurements published by volcanic institutions around the world, which makes this study important to provide a perspective regarding other acidic substances that can affect life and structures in a volcanic park."

I, therefore, support publication of this study. I also appreciate that authors collected and used their own field data. I do not have additional comments, but I recommend to check again text as some parts could be improved (both grammar and stylistics). 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thanks for your comments about the document. We checked the text for a better grammar and stylistics sentences.  

Best

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written. Some picture can be improve graphically

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments and time. We changed the picture of the document. 

Best

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Authors prepared manuscript titled „Exposure to acid aerosols in the visiting areas of the Poás Volcano National Park, Costa Rica” It shows chemical monitoring after the internal volcano explosion March 28, 2017. Manuscript is interesting however needs some corrections.

Detail comments:

1.      Abstract should be corrected and focus on the key issue. It means abstract should provide an overview: why authors start researching (that there was an explosion), when it happened, (some short characteristic) and clarification that the area needs chemical monitoring, because of protection of visitors, fauna, flora, etc…. Authors' version doesn't present this aspect and as a consequence doesn't fit the manuscript.

2.      Fig. 1–I would suggest changing Spanish labels for English and provide numbering of selected sites.

3.      Please provide the section analysis. Authors shouldn't move from the methods to the results directly without any analysis section. Please reorganize the structure.

4.      L.148-150–Unclear concept please clarify. If no results...I would suggest mentioning it in the end of the analytical process.

5.      Figs 2 and 3–please unify the legend style. Please unify also the font size.

6.      L.168 what "analyte' means? Please clarify.

7.      L.188- 204–I would suggest producing the subsection on the weather station.

 

8.      Subsection 3.1 also should be divided. Maybe any discussion section added e.g. from L.229.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your time and comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files. 

1. The abstract now has an itroduction of the Poás volcano eruption in 2017.
2. The figure was changed. 
3. There is a new subsection of analysis. 
4. The sentence was moved to the end of the analytical process. 
5. Figures 2 and 3 were changed. 
6. The sentence was changed. 
7. There is a new subsection on the weather station. 
8. There is a newsubsection about: Comparizon with other volcanic places

Best