Estimating the Contribution of the Summer Traffic Peak to PM_2.5, NO_x, and NMVOCs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please use the attached file of the ms "NOTED" where I inserted my suggestions and criticism embedded in you ms.

the main objection is that you should justify the algorithm for evaluating total travel distance. moreover there is no reference to the traffic volumes recorded by the different stations/sensors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

please review carefully references. some of hem are not complete or ambigous

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review of this manuscript. Enclosed are detailed responses to your comments, accompanied by the revised submission files. Kindly note that all modifications pertaining to Reviewer 1’s feedback have been highlighted in green for your convenience.

Please, take a look at my document Respond to reviewer 1 for details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I reviewed the manuscript entitled “Estimating the Contribution of PM2.5, NOx, and NMVOCs from Summer Traffic Peak”. I would like to underline that the manuscript presents already known or expected results. There is a lack of novelty referring to the main limitation of the manuscript for its publication in the ATMOS. It needs some major corrections listed below:

Abstract Section:

1)      What will be the contribution of the study to the literature? Gaps in the literature related to the aim of the study should be expressed in the Abstract Section.

Introduction Section:

2)      In lines 89-90, the significance of CO2 in the transport sector was highlighted, but the study does not cover the elevation of CO2 emissions. This state should be checked by the authors.

3)      In lines 96-98, it was expressed that the study’s results will contribute to improvement in the Slovenian highway junction. It can be evaluated on a global scale. The results obtained from the study can be evaluated for leading to other countries’ traffic policies. In lines 98-99, although it was stressed for other areas with the same condition, the global scale should be highlighted instead of the Slovenian region.

4)      There is a need comprehensive literature review that will make a sufficient critique of existing works.

Methods Section:

5)      What is the reason for the selection of 5 vehicle categories in Table 2? In lines 112-116, 8 different vehicle categories were mentioned.

6)      In Table 2, 1 refers to no emission. I wonder if there is any information for these types of vehicles or not. If it is not, it can be shown as no information or not available.

7)      The reference for Equation 1 must be given.

Results Section:

8)      Does Figure 4 show the changes for the year of 2021? It is not clear. The changes comparing the summer period and the rest of the year of 2021 or average changes starting from 2015 to 2022.

Discussion and Conclusion Section:

9)      Discussion and Conclusion sections must be separated from each other.

10)   Why is it important to evaluate vehicle emissions during the summertime? The main reason must be clearly expressed to understand the significance of the study.

11)   The study presents the expected results including that during the summer holidays, there are fewer daily workers on the road, so the increase in passenger cars belongs mostly to transit and tourism transport. It is already known information. So, the manuscript should be revised to show the novel contributions to the literature during the evaluation of the results.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review of this manuscript. Enclosed are detailed responses to your comments, accompanied by the revised submission files. Kindly note that all modifications pertaining to Reviewer 2’s feedback have been highlighted in yellow for your convenience.

Please, take a look at my document Respond to reviewer 2 for details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has potential for publication.

However, it requires significant adjustments, adaptations and improvements in the discussion of results and conclusions, before final acceptance.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review of this manuscript. Enclosed are detailed responses to your comments, accompanied by the revised submission files. Kindly note that all modifications pertaining to Reviewer 3’s feedback have been highlighted in blue for your convenience.

Please, take a look at my document Respond to reviewer 3 for details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the ms can be accepted in this form; you solved points I raised, ys PC

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your consideration of the required revision. I can suggest that the manuscript can be accepted for publication at ATMOSPHERE.