The Origin of Dust Particles in Atmospheric Air in Krakow (Poland) (Atmospheric Background)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion the authors greatly improved the manuscript. However, some parts of the document are still not very clear, so they should  be improved. In the methodology, they report an analysis period of 2 years, but only show 6 samples in two periods, the environmental parameters of temperature, humidity, were not yet included in the results. Some writing errors must be rectified (e.g arecharacterized, others).Figure 3 is unformatted and with no reference in captions.

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion. To improve the manuscript, the sampling timeframe has been described in more detail and the table with meteorological conditions during sampling has been added. In the discussion of the results and conclusions, describes the influence of the direction of the inflow of air masses on the obtained results. To eliminate errors, the text has undergone linguistic correction. The layout of figure 3 has been formatted and references have been added to manuscript text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Graphical representation can be improved by enhancement of specific elements with high impact on human health.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and opinion. The new references have been added to the text regarding the impact of dusts present in Krakow on the health of the inhabitants. In the discussion of the results and conclusions, describes the influence of the direction of the inflow of air masses on the obtained results. The best microscopic photos of the collected particles were selected to present in manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

See comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your opinion and comments. In the manuscript I referred to all comments. All changes are marked in blue. To eliminate language mistakes, the text has undergone linguistic correction.

Reviewer 4 Report

According to the text of the paper, the goal of the manuscript is “to determine what type of particles are present in the atmospheric air in Krakow".

Paper would be interesting if it had included an analysis of the origin of the particles and seasonality, with reference to other studies. Paper shows the identification of type of particles, chemical composition, shape and  size and its classification according to air masses circulation but there is not an analysis about its origin.

Some comments to improve the paper:

1.- Paper aim is not clear about the information provided by the authors. In abstract (second paragraph) authors say “The aim of the study was to identify the origin of dust particles in Krakow and to attempt to determine their sources”,  but in the last paragraph of the introduction section afirm “The main aim of this study was to determine what type of particles are present in the atmospheric air in Krakow”. In my opinion, and according to the paper, the main aim of this paper is to determine what type of particles are present in the atmospheric air in Krakow and this aim is covered by other recent studies (see point 2)

2.- There is not reference to other recent research about the atmospheric air composition in Krakow. In my opinion, atmospheric air composition in Krakow is well studied by other studies. Please, see the following references as an example :

Traczyk P, Gruszecka-Kosowska A. The Condition of Air Pollution in Kraków, Poland, in 2005-2020, with Health Risk Assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6063. Published 2020 Aug 20. doi:10.3390/ijerph17176063

Kicińska, Alicja & Bożęcki, Piotr. (2018). Metals and mineral phases of dusts collected in different urban parks of Krakow and their impact on the health of city residents. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 40. 10.1007/s10653-017-9934-5.

Jachimowski, Artur & Paprocki, Marcin & Wojnarowska, Magdalena. (2018). Tackling Air Pollution in Krakow. E3S Web of Conferences. 44. 00053. 10.1051/e3sconf/20184400053.

https://www.iqair.com/poland/lesser-poland-voivodeship/krakow

https://air.plumelabs.com/air-quality-in-Krakow-cZ6a

Authors should identify and highlight the differences and novelty of the proposed study with the previous one.

3.- Conclusions are very limited and supported by the previous studies.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and opinion.

The main goals of the work have been redrafted. To improve the manuscript, the sampling timeframe has been described in more detail and the table with meteorological conditions during sampling has been added. This made possible to better refer to the publications proposed by reviewer.

In the discussion of the results and conclusions, reference was made to the publications proposed by the reviewer. In the discussion of the results and conclusions, describes the influence of the direction of the inflow of air masses on the obtained results, The reference was made to the presence of zinc and iron in relation to the previously conducted research. Attention was also paid to the presence of particles resulting of burning low quality fuel in coal-fired stoves located around of Krakow.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for the response. Aims have been clarified and the correlation with another researches about air pollution in Krakow has been included. Conclusions has been improved too. According to this modifications I recommend the paper to be published in Energies journal in the present form.

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

The authors studied the origin of dust particles in Kraków and attempt to determine their sources. Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM-EDS) was the analytical method used in the study of the size and morphology of dust particles collected in Krakow. Interpretations of the particle source areas were based on the HYSPLIT model.

In my opinion, the authors must improve the objectives of the study considered the results obtained. Was not clear the relationship between the type of particulate matter observed and the potential sources and origins. The methodology used for identification of chemical composition of particulate matter, must be include in a separation subject different from the data collection.  More information about HYSPLIT model must be included. Atmospheres parameters were referenced on methodology (temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, e.g.), but without any reference in the results.

 (Line 239)-  In conclusion, a diversity in the chemical composition and frequency of particles of a given shape depending on the direction of the advancement of air masses was observed in the tested material. – Please remove ‘in conclusion’.

(Line 245- 248) - For better understanding, the different photographic figures presented must be organized in one Figure, sequentially with a), b) , c)  d) etc.

The authors refer that the among the analyzed particles, the most numerous group were dusts with a diameter up to 1 μm. Please clarify the percentage of different particulate matter considered the size (PM10, PM2,5 and PM1 or less) and also the type of particulate matter. The main effects on human health is based on the PM fraction respiratory.

It was not clear the main conclusions of the study considered the initial objectives.

Reviewer 2 Report

Figures counting is not very clear.

Reviewer 3 Report

My recommendation is that the entire manuscript to be reviewed by a native English speaker to correct certain grammar and punctuation errors that can be found in various parts of the text such as ‘in a calendar year’ in L.44, ‘The aim goal’ in L.58, ‘tried define’ in L.59, ‘material were’ in L.88, ‘in the form irregular’ in L.115, etc.

Along the manuscript the name of the city is switching between Krakow and Kraków. Moreover, in figure 1 the name is stated as Cracow. The name should be homogenized in the text and maps.

L. 12 – 13 ‘… significant contribution of particles from adjacent areas is also likely’: Weak justification (due to ‘also likely’) to be contained in the abstract

L. 34 Environmental policies also should be taken into consideration.

L. 44-45 Authors should choose a nomenclature for the particles/material and not to mix terms which refers to the same thing, as it is the case of ‘Dusts with aerodynamic diameter below 2,5’ and “PM2,5”. The same when referring to soot, carbon, etc.

L. 58-60 It should be rewritten to clarify the main objectives.

L. 72 Check if it is really ‘low emission’

L. 100 HYSPLIT model was used in the study, but in the manuscript it does not even appear a map showing the trajectories. Neither results from the trajectories analysis is almost shown in the Results Section.

L. 113 Revise ‘Also Elongated’

L. 135 ‘six during cold and warm half year’ is unclear.

L. 136-137 A reference or explanation should be included regarding type of weather or type of circulation analysis.

L. 169 – 176 Revise the references to Figure 3. Graphs in Figure 3 should be named with letters, and when referencing in the text not only to mention the letter but figure. Samples: Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b, etc.

L. 176- 177 Southwest advection: why there is no mention to O values? The same in the northwest advection for the Cr, O, N and Na cases.

Figure 3 (caption): the text in the caption is not really a caption but an explanation that should be included in the text not in the figure.

L. 200 ’50 nm’ instead of ‘50nm’

L. 200 is it carbon black or black carbon? Check it.

L. 228 – 231 It should be included in the Discussion section, not in the Results section.

L. 239 – 243 It should not be included as results but conclusion.

Figures 4 – 12 Reorganize them. One picture, one caption.

L. 261 – 299 In the Discussion section there is no reference to the Results sections or figures/graphs in that section.

L. 316 ‘100 nm’ instead ‘100nm’

L. 307 ‘for the recognition of the origin of particles present’: but in the results there is no mention to the seek of that origin. Only a slight mention in L. 136 – 140 could be considered related to this analysis which could be further developed.

Reference [40] is wrongly written in the bibliography section.

Reviewer 4 Report

According to the paper, the goal of the manuscript is “the analysis of particles occurring in Krakow and attempt to determine their origin. Also tried define the frequency of particulate matter of various types during selected synoptic situations”.

Paper would be interesting if it had included an analysis of the origin of the particles and seasonality. Paper shows the identification of type of particles, chemical composition, shape and  size and its classification according to air masses circulation but there is not an analysis about its origin.

Some comments to improve the paper:

1.- In the paper is not described the period (days, months,…) of sample collection, difference, characteristic of dust pollution sampling point and the weather conditions is this period that could affect the results. (rain, snow, air speed, …). According to the paper, it seems that only several days in a season have been collected samples.

 Lines 84-85: “Sampling was carried out during selected periods characterized by the most coherent conditions in atmosphere - typical for given type of circulation”.  

It should be thoroughly described.

2.- Some significant conclusions are not supported by the paper. For instance, the origin of the particles: in line 311. Which is the influence of each activity in the Krakow and the potential  inflow of pollution from neighboring areas of Krakow: home furnaces, industrial,  service plants car engines, …? .  

Point 1 and 2  could explain the presence of the majority of particules.

3.- More research reference to other study about pollutants should be included in the introduction.