Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is very interesting paper. The structure of article is clear. There are intruduction, methods of research analysis and discussion transparently presented. I suggest only to extend introduction section in the future.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper could be accepted after a major revision.

1. Keywords, I see the author use "Air Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion", what air emission you measured? BTW, it is too long to be used as a keyword.

2.methods secotion, why no citation on the equation you used?

3.The format of Tables in the paper is not consistent.

4.Too many figures in the paper, why not remove some to supporting information?

5. Only a little discussion in you paper, thus difficult to understand the innovation.

 

Need moderate language edition.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The language should be polished.

The language should be polished.

Author Response

The English proofreading of this paper was carried out by native speakers.

Thank you so much.