Living Environment Quality Determinants, Including PM2.5 and PM10 Dust Pollution in the Context of Spatial Issues—The Case of Radzionków
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for this paper and I enjoyed reading about the situation with PM 2.5 PM 10 in a coal region in Poland. There is no doubting the importance of this research and its relevance in the building policy area. I am impressed by the work in bringing all the data together. So there are some very useful parts to the article.
I do though have some general comments that you will take as enabling improvement of the manuscript to bring it up to top class.
The writing needs to be improved. There are some rather long sentences and some unfortunate misses (eg micron missing on line 35). I would suggest getting a professional writer to lift the writings. Figures 1-8 are too many and somewhat confusing. Could you reduce Figures 1-4 and 5-7 down to one figure each - figure 8 is fine. This is important as each figure should be well described both in the caption and the text. My most important comment concerns the underlying theoretical approach to the article and also the research question. Without this the article comes across as more of a technical report rather than a research article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
First of all, thank you very much for reviewing my article.
Point 1:
The writing needs to be improved. There are some rather long sentences and some unfortunate misses (eg micron missing on line 35). I would suggest getting a professional writer to lift the writings.
Response 1:
The whole text has been checked and grammatically corrected. Long sentences were replaced with shorter ones.
Point 2:
Figures 1-8 are too many and somewhat confusing. Could you reduce Figures 1-4 and 5-7 down to one figure each - figure 8 is fine. This is important as each figure should be well described both in the caption and the text.
Response 2:
I would not like to delete drawings of cross-sections, because they show a holistic spatial layout - valley structure of the city, which has been ignored in many scientific works. In order to clarify them, I added wider comments in the text that confirm the legitimacy of the drawings that I used.
The conclusions relate to several issues: insulation of objects, their location, ventilation possibilities. However, they largely depend on the topography and urban layout, which was shown in Figure 7, while the topography strictly follows from Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Point 3:
My most important comment concerns the underlying theoretical approach to the article and also the research question. Without this, the article comes across as more of a technical report rather than a research article.
Response 3:
In order to clearly explain the research problem, I have included two basic questions (lines 91-94 in the new - revised text).
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author/authors,
First of all, l would like to mention, that it is necessary that you review the language (terminology and grammar). The sentences are, in multiple places, unnecessarily glued together. This makes it hard to follow.
Furthermore, please pay more attention to singular and plural forms of verbs, nouns and pronouns. Nearly in each sentence there is a discrepancy between the nouns and verbs used. Check all sentences for missing articles.
Also, just for the sake of consistency, check (add or remove) the comas between the reference numbers (e.g. line 45 and 48).
The whole text needs to be checked for typos (e.g. line 84).
The comas in general seem to be added into the sentences randomly. They are in places where they do not belong, but are omitted in other.
There are a lot of terms misused in the text, which might be a result of the direct translation from the authors native language to English. I would recommend that the author consults a native speaker working in the field of engineering to adjust the terminology.
Line 27: Czechoslovakia self-determinedly split in 1993
Line 45: The sentence lacks a verb
Line 105: The types and types...? whereas the whole sentence makes no sense (also line 140-141).
Between the lines 90-153 some of the sentences seem to repeat, or some facts are stated twice in a row.
Line 215 Yes, there is a reference missing in the brackets. Also please add references to places where you mention regulations from the EU or recommendations from WHO or similar.
In general, one can see the effort put into drafting the paper. However, the text is chaotic. In some cases there is too much detail, but in other cases there is none. Nowhere is it mentioned how the data concerning insulation or heating in the households was gathered. No overall statistical data is presented (I would recommend to add a table with an overview of the results). Further there is a section titled Methods, whereas no methods are described. Only while reading the results one finds out that there was data gathered on air quality in one measurement point, whereas I am not able to find anywhere in the text during which period the data was gathered.
Also due to the fact that the language quality is low, it is hard to follow the text. One does not even get to the research part of the article, because after a few sentences one is lost in what the author would like to say.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
First of all, thank you very much for reviewing my article.
Point 1:
First of all, l would like to mention, that it is necessary that you review the language (terminology and grammar). The sentences are, in multiple places, unnecessarily glued together. This makes it hard to follow.
Furthermore, please pay more attention to singular and plural forms of verbs, nouns and pronouns. Nearly in each sentence, there is a discrepancy between the nouns and verbs used. Check all sentences for missing articles.
Response 1:
The whole text has been checked and grammatically corrected. Long sentences were replaced with shorter ones. Some sentences were reworded to improve the readability of the text.
Point 2:
Also, just for the sake of consistency, check (add or remove) the comas between the reference numbers (e.g. line 45 and 48).
The whole text needs to be checked for typos (e.g. line 84).
The comas in general seem to be added into the sentences randomly. They are in places where they do not belong, but are omitted in other.
Response 2:
All commas between responses have been removed.
The whole text was checked for typos interpunction.
Point 3:
There are a lot of terms misused in the text, which might be a result of the direct translation from the authors native language to English. I would recommend that the author consults a native speaker working in the field of engineering to adjust the terminology.
Response 3:
The whole text has been checked according to the language.
Point 4 - Response 4
Line 27: Czechoslovakia self-determinedly split in 1993 - It has been corrected.
Line 45: The sentence lacks a verb. It has been corrected.
Line 105: The types and types...? whereas the whole sentence makes no sense (also line 140-141). It has been corrected.
Between the lines 90-153 some of the sentences seem to repeat, or some facts are stated twice in a row. It has been corrected.
Line 215 Yes, there is a reference missing in the brackets. It has been corrected
Point 5 - Response 5
Also please add references to places where you mention regulations from the EU or recommendations from WHO or similar. It has been corrected [Reference 63]
Point 6:
In general, one can see the effort put into drafting the paper. However, the text is chaotic. In some cases there is too much detail, but in other cases there is none. Nowhere is it mentioned how the data concerning insulation or heating in the households was gathered. No overall statistical data is presented (I would recommend to add a table with an overview of the results). Further there is a section titled Methods, whereas no methods are described. Only while reading the results one finds out that there was data gathered on air quality in one measurement point, whereas I am not able to find anywhere in the text during which period the data was gathered.
Also due to the fact that the language quality is low, it is hard to follow the text. One does not even get to the research part of the article, because after a few sentences one is lost in what the author would like to say.
Response 6:
The method of data collection has been added.
The description of the method has been made clear [109- 115 line].
Tests for individual zones were conducted during the winter period in 2018 and 2019 [133 - 115 line].
I hope that after the corrections are made, the text is more readable.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a very relevant research on the subject of outdoor air quality, it is a well-structured state of the art which allows an easy understanding of the problems that led to the motivation to write the article.
At first I had doubts about the relevance of the study of outdoor air quality in a small town, but as I read the state of the art the relevance of the research was increasingly understood.
In the introduction, it is possible to add a paragraph with quantitative values of pollution in small cities that are above the maximum thresholds in a different city, or in another country or context, and are commented on to justify the problems that motivated the authors to write the paper.
It would be nice if the introduction would end with the objectives of the research.
The work methodology is very well explained and detailed.
Figure 6 can be improved, eliminating source details and leaving only relevant values.
Figure 8 shows an image that reinforces the hypothesis that there should be spatial policies in terms of protecting the quality of the living environment. It would be good if the authors did not leave the reader alone with the very good explanation that appears in lines 288-301, where they state that percentages of 55%, 35% and 15% can be allocated to the 3 zones, in the planned co-financing and support for improving installations and heating systems in buildings, if it would not be good if the authors commented that these percentages can be achieved as a measure of environmental policy in some quantitative value for example.
The results and discussions section has very good information, although it would be good for a better understanding of the results to add at least two or three graphs to the article, such as graphs of PM2.5 and PM10 in the different zones of the city or concentration measurements according to building morphological structures, degree of modernisation and heating systems.
The conclusions are very well supported.
The literature is adequate, consistent and correct.
I suggest that the authors take into consideration the observations indicated, which will give greater value to the article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
First of all, thank you very much for reviewing my article.
Point 1:
In the introduction, it is possible to add a paragraph with quantitative values of pollution in small cities that are above the maximum thresholds in a different city, or in another country or context, and are commented on to justify the problems that motivated the authors to write the paper.
Response 1:
The main purpose of the article was to show pollution contamination from the spatial aspect. Quantitative lists of pollutants have been presented in many publications, including reference [8], [15], [46]
Point 2:
It would be nice if the introduction would end with the objectives of the research.
The work methodology is very well explained and detailed.
Response 2:
In order to clearly explain the research problem, I have included two basic questions (lines 91-94 in the new - revised text).
Point 3:
Figure 6 can be improved, eliminating source details and leaving only relevant values.
Response 3:
The illustration shows the strength and direction of the wind at two altitudes at 10 meters and at 50 meters. Differences in wind force are clearly noticeable, which at low altitudes is much weaker than at an altitude of 50m. This makes the actual air movement inside the valley is very small, largely with the most top-of-the-line unfavourable south-west direction.
Point 4:
Figure 8 shows an image that reinforces the hypothesis that there should be spatial policies in terms of protecting the quality of the living environment. It would be good if the authors did not leave the reader alone with the very good explanation that appears in lines 288-301, where they state that percentages of 55%, 35% and 15% can be allocated to the 3 zones, in the planned co-financing and support for improving installations and heating systems in buildings, if it would not be good if the authors commented that these percentages can be achieved as a measure of environmental policy in some quantitative value for example.
Response 4:
The description below the figure is extended and explanation added at the end of the text.
Point 5:
The results and discussions section has very good information, although it would be good for a better understanding of the results to add at least two or three graphs to the article, such as graphs of PM2.5 and PM10 in the different zones of the city or concentration measurements according to building morphological structures, degree of modernisation and heating systems.
The conclusions are very well supported.
The literature is adequate, consistent and correct.
I suggest that the authors take into consideration the observations indicated, which will give greater value to the article.
Response 5:
The conclusions relate to several issues: insulation of objects, their location, ventilation possibilities. However, they largely depend on the topography and urban layout, which was shown in Figure 7, while the topography strictly follows from Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
English:
Although there were some changes done in the article, the language is still not good enough. I would recommend, that the author hires a certified English speaker - to correct grammar and rudimentary mistakes. However, the overall use of the English vocabulary does not rise to the standards expected, to the quality that is required for the relevant publication.
A few examples:
Line 1: The determinants
Line 4: 360 buildings, from which 6 groups of 60 buildings were examined in the aforementioned city
Line 5: "That allowed to distinguish 3 different areas in terms of the quality", wrong use of present tense
Line 7: of such a situation
Line 8: "Many" research - phrase is not applicable, "a lot of" or "much" - only alternatives
Line 9 In the presented publication, rather article instead of publication
Line 10-13: The author ( instead of "in" please use "of", too much else to correct ) the research, taking into account: location variables - presented and shows differences in the measurements of air pollution in relation to the designated location zones depending on the morphological structure of the buildings, the degree of their modernization and the types of heating systems. Extremely poorly written, English lacking, rewrite or consult certified English speaker.
The 207: The thickness of insulation of objects hesitates between 5 and 10cm. This is simply wrong.
These are a few examples that are found within only the first paragraph of the article. Continuing on one encounters a plethora of more severe mistakes and at an exponential rate. This must be addressed.
Research:
Again, please be more specific when and how were the measurements performed.
Line 111: Insulation and heating system of buildings has been checked by in
situ vision. (The sentence is grammatically is incorrect). Please how can you see how thick an insulation is? And how can you see what heating is used? Did you just look as you say, or did you interview the owners? Or are your statements relating to the empirical grounded in other research material (i.e. reference 57)?
Line 129: Surveys of individual places were conducted using a manual certified portable measuring device. What measurement device, when, and where? Be exact.
Line 241-262: This part should be in part 2. Subject and method of research. This is crucial background information taken from the official documents of the municipality [56-57] - not your research.
Author Response
The explanation is contained in the attached file.
Best regards
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
After reviewing the corrections, the following two points remain to be corrected.
1) The results and discussions section has very good information, although it would be good for a better understanding of the results to add at least two or three graphs to the article, such as graphs of PM2.5 and PM10 in the different zones of the city or concentration measurements according to building morphological structures, degree of modernisation and heating systems.
2)Figure 6 can be improved, eliminating source details and leaving only relevant values
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Two graphs have been added regarding the occurring PM2.5 and PM10 impurities for different zones at different days.
Figure No. 6 was corrected
The entire text has been corrected by a certified translator.
Best regards
Author
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept the changes in the article, and the explanations in the attached document.
