Epidemiological Study on Health Risk Assessment of Exposure to PM2.5-Bound Toxic Metals in the Industrial Metropolitan of Rayong, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents an interesting study on the components of PM2.5 and its health impact. My comments are detailed below.
The authors mentioned the importance of PM2.5 regarding human health in the introduction section. However, the atmospheric level of PM2.5 is not necessarily proportionable to the human exposure level because people spend 90% of their time indoors and there could be air cleaners filtrate the air before sending it indoors. Using different kinds of air-cleaning devices may help to mitigate the impact [c1- c3]. Please extensively enrich your introduction with those published papers considered.
[c1] Sublett, J. L. (2011). Effectiveness of Air Filters and Air Cleaners in Allergic Respiratory Diseases: A Review of the Recent Literature. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, 11(5), 395–402.
[c2] Wang, P., Liu, J., Wang, C., Zhang, Z., & Li, J. (2022). A holistic performance assessment of duct-type electrostatic precipitators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 357, 131997.
[c3] Morishita, M., Adar, S. D., D’Souza, J., Ziemba, R. A., Bard, R. L., Spino, C., & Brook, R. D. (2018). Effect of Portable Air Filtration Systems on Personal Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter and Blood Pressure Among Residents in a Low-Income Senior Facility: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(10), 1350–1357.
Equations 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not correct. Please check and revise accordingly.
How do the PTFE and quartz filters only collects PM2.5 but not those particles in a larger size? If it collects all particles larger than certain size, the result should not be PM2.5 but PM10 or even TSP.
If the authors decide to use the acronyms to replace the full name, such as NAAQS, there is no need to repeatedly give the full name and acronyms in the rest of the paper.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their precious time and invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, the concentrations of PM2.5 and heavy metals in PM2.5 samples in industrial metropolitan of Rayong city was determined during dry season. Also, the non-carcinogenic risk and lung cancer risk of the determined PM2.5-bound toxic metals was investigated on human health. This manuscript will be considered for acceptable after revised based on the following comments:
1. Abstract must be enriched via valuable results which pave the way for understanding the audiences.
2. Written is very week. In its current state, the level of English throughout the manuscript needs language polishing. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.
3. The introduction section is very short and poorly described. It doesn't present the reference to the manuscript scope. In the introduction section, Authors should make an in-depth literature review concerning the use of new technologies such as nanotechnology to improve human life and solve environmental and economic problems as well as storage and production of clean energy via simple and economical methods. Introduction has deficiency citation to valuable works published before such as: Journal of Cleaner Production 222 (2019) 103-110; J Mater Sci: Mater Electron (2017) 28:17849–17859; Composites Part B 167 (2019) 643–653; Journal of Molecular Liquids 216 (2016) 545–551; Composites Part B 174 (2019) 106930; Separation and Purification Technology 178 (2017) 138–146; authors should be cite to these works to improve introduction section.
4. And the structure of the manuscript might need a major adjusting for a better understanding.
5. Redesign the methods chapter the way so anybody can repeat your procedures.
6. Results and discussion: - To increase the scientific value of the manuscript Authors should consider extension of the all results section with comparison of obtained results with the results described in previous publications.
7. Indeed, there are impressive amount of results. However, the conclusions section needs to improve with selected and highlighted main findings.
8. What is the main significance of paper in comparison to other published works?
9. This work should be compared with the other work in Table form.
10. The authors should prepare all tables with better quality.
11. The authors should prepare all figures with better quality and resolution
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their precious time and invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper measured the concentrations of PM2.5 and metals in Rayong city, Thailand. The authors found that industrial and traffic emissions are this city’s main sources of heavy metals, which is reasonable. In addition, they performed the analysis of lung cancer risk for the toxic metals. I think the results and conclusions of this study will improve our understanding of the health impact of air pollution in SE Asia. Overall, this paper looks good and I support its publication.
Line 247-249. I suggest the authors make a comparison with the PM2.5 standards of neighboring countries in Asia such as China and Vietnam.
Line 391: only factor loadings higher than 0.5 were deemed to be statistically significant? Why 0.5?
Line 465: add the reference
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their precious time and invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors extensively revised the manuscript according to my comments. I think it is publishable now.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of my Comments and the manuscript could be acceptable now.
