Assessment of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 Concentrations in Santo Domingo: A Comparative Study Between 2019 and 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the revised manuscript contains the necessary corrections based on the reviewer's opinion. Given the significant improvement of the manuscript compared to the previous version, I believe that the work requires some (minor) revision in terms of methods, discussion, and conclusions.
Comments that need to be clarified or corrected:
1. In comparing the data for 2019 and 2022, you use the Student's t-test, but your data are not normally distributed, I think it would be more logical to use nonparametric methods.
2. It seems to me that the authors make too strict a statement about the role of the Sahara in atmospheric pollution. There is a connection (albeit quite weak) between pm10 and pm2.5, which means the source is local or regional. To confirm the source, "indicator gases" can be used, which can be used to suggest the source of dust and its range (nitrogen oxide, ozone, etc.). In this paper, in the opinion of the reviewer, there is insufficient data on the influence of the Sahara. It can be claimed as a potential source, but highlighting it as a main one is redundant.
3. How the AOD raster data was converted to values, add this to the manuscript. Indicate the availability of the data (their openness, if so).
4. Add more recent data on genotoxicity/toxicity of dust on lung cells, as this is claimed as an important population impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing my comments and questions. I recommend accepting the paper now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides an assessment of dust pollution in the atmosphere of Santo Domingo, located in the Dominican Republic. The work may be useful for local authorities to establish a program for monitoring air pollution and reducing the impact on the population. The work is an important initial contribution to research in the Caribbean.
However, before the article is accepted, it needs to be edited.

My comments:
The introduction requires a small addition to expand the audience of readers.
1. It is necessary to indicate that there are data on the toxicity of dust of these fractions, which mainly increases simultaneously with a decrease in the particle size of the dust. Such studies are aimed at assessing the geno- and cytotoxicity of this dust. Also,
the material composition affects the danger of dust and its sources. Indicate that the particle size of the dust and its particle size distribution can indicate the proximity of the dust source.
2. Provide a more detailed analysis of previous studies in the Dominican Republic to highlight the gap that your study fills.

Materials and methods
1. I think there is some semantic error in this section, which allows asking the question: "Only 1 day of research in each year?". I think it is necessary to correct line 61-62.
2. Specify which objects refer to 2019, and which to 2022 in Figure 1.
3. Provide more data on the dust sensor? What is its operating principle (it is currently presented very limitedly). What are the errors and limits of detection of dust particles for each fraction?
4. According to what protocol were the measurements taken? How many times per hour and for what duration was the sampling? What is the height of the sensors? Is it maintained?
5. Specify the dates of the measurements? What was the weather like? Are the data comparable in this regard?
6. Why did you choose two correlation coefficients? Normality was checked and using what tests? As a result, what correlations are shown to us in the results section?
7. Specify the coordinates of the meteorological station.
8. What is the resolution of the AOD data? Please indicate this in the article. Based on this, are they suitable for your work?

9. What type of interpolation was used and why was it chosen?

Results.

1. What do the * symbols in Table 2 mean? Specify what correlation and indicate the corresponding symbol for it.
2. How were the data obtained for the year? If the measurements were taken on one day? Please clarify.
3. Figure 2. If the data was obtained for the year, then why are they presented in different forms in different years: in a monthly interval (2019) and in an annual one (2022)?
4. The text and link to Figure 4 should be before the figure.
5. Does Figure 5 show average values ​​for each company? Why does the interval between isolines vary within the figure? It is probably better to bring all scales to uniformity for clarity.
6. What do "0" and "*" mean in Figure 8?
7.

Discussion.
1. There is no explanation for the absence of any significant predictors for the PM10 obtained in 2019.
2. Give a more detailed explanation of how the dustiness of the Sahara and the dustiness of the atmosphere of the Dominican Republic are related?
3. There is no section on the limitations of the studies and their impact on the results obtained, I think they can be combined with the recommendations section.

After the changes have been made to the article, a second review must be conducted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I cannot recommend publication of the submitted manuscript in Atmosphere. The design of the study was not the best possible; therefore, the results obtained are neither representative nor reliable. First, it does not make any sense to study the spatial variability of PM concentrations measured at different sampling sites on different days. The fact that samples were not collected simultaneously makes it impossible to compare concentration values ​​between sites. Second, one sample per site is clearly insufficient to consider the results representative and reproducible. Third, concentrations measured in 2019 and 2022 cannot be compared since samples were collected for different periods of the year; consequently, the differences between PM₁₀ concentrations measured in 2019 and 2022 could be affected by seasonal variations rather than year-to-year changes.

 

Some specific comments:

• Line 16. What do the authors mean by “Saharan air layer”? What’s the difference with “dust storms”?
• Page 3. The authors provide details on sample collection but they do not mention the type of filters used or how PM concentrations were determined.
• Page 5. Figure 5 should go after Figure 4.
• Page 7. PM concentrations are never expressed in ppm.
• Line 216. Why do the authors use weekly instead of daily average values? How many PM₁₀ and AOD data were correlated? I guess that the number of paired data points is very low. Again, this makes it impossible to obtain conclusive results.
• The term “Saharan air layer concentrations” doesn´t exist.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf