A Case Study of Air Quality and a Health Index over a Port, an Urban and a High-Traffic Location in Rhodes City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper is interesting and well written. However, I have 2 main concerns:

- the novelty of the paper is not very clear. As it is now, it seems a routine analysis of air quality observations. It could be I miss the novelty of the work, but also from the introduction this is not very clear. So, please better write in the introduction why you think your paper is novel in respect to the scientific literature

- the analysis is based on a very short campaign (only 11 days). Please justify why a so short period is sufficient for your analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachmented document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor revision is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors analyzed the hourly PM2.5, NO2, and O3 concentration records of the Air Quality Monitoring Systems (AQMS) in three study areas, as well as the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI). And authors studied the daily and diurnal variations of pollutant concentration and air quality index in different regions, as well as the relationship between environmental air pollutants and air quality index. The topic of the research is relevant to Air Quality and Atmospheric Environment. However, to help improve the quality of this manuscript and make it outstanding among the published works, I have provided the following major comments:

1.Lines 198-213: The authors only used the wind speed data from ECMWF, but the data affecting PM2.5, NO2 and O3 include temperature, humidity, boundary layer height, etc. These data could also be obtained from the ECMWF website. In order to make the manuscript more comprehensive, I suggest the authors add these data.

2.Line 159: I suggest the authors add the specific instrument details for measuring PM2.5, NO2 and O3 data, because the specific instruments they use are different.

3. The research method of this manuscript is simple. The authors only conducted a comparative analysis of ground monitoring data in time series. Please add some analytical methods.

Technical comments:

1.Some paragraphs are indented at the beginning of the line, while others are not. Please maintain consistent formatting (Line 56, Line 123, Line 138 et al.).

2.Line 166: This is an incomplete sentence.

3. Please provide the website for downloading wind speed from ECMWF in the corresponding words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggest acceptence. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.