Could Air Quality Get Better during Epidemic Prevention and Control in China? An Analysis Based on Regression Discontinuity Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Could Air Quality Get Better during Epidemic Prevention and Control in China? An Analysis Based on Regression Discontinuity Design
Abstract: This abstract is well written and captures the study
1. Introduction: Aside numerous long ended statements affecting understanding which I suggest to be shortened where necessary, I find the study well introduced.
2. Materials and Methods: Aside the same long ended issue, this section is well structured
The results section is well presented but the discussion is too brief and not well done. I suggest both sections are merged and properly compared with similar studies of relevance
The topic of the study is of great importance and will appeal to readers. I will suggest a thorough revision of the entire paper e…
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Relation between Covid outbreak and and air quality has been discussed before. However authors have looked into China region, which is novel to me.
The introduction is sound and covers the area of the article, citing enough relevant sources. Data collection from WAQIP is a good idea, as well as mathematics used in the analysis. I have not detected any problem with the computation. Discussion is reasonable and findings are valid, conclusions a bit general ...
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
I have a very big problem evaluating this manuscript. On the one hand, the authors use advanced statistical techniques, and on the other hand, they have no basic knowledge of the analyzed air quality problem. The article is very interesting but also chaotic, the introduction mostly does not concern the analyzed problem. This chapter provides general information about COVID. In general the introduction needs some restructure in a way to identify the research gap.
There is no discussion in the article - no references to research by other authors.
In manuscript there is no reference to research conducted outside of China. Most of the literature concerns only the area of China. Due to the lack of worldwide, new literature, the article has only local significance.
The authors really need to systematically revise the manuscript, from structure to the relevance for more international interest. If merely limited to the case study in China, then the manuscript is more suitable for a regional journal.
Chapter conclusions (except for lines 288-293) not related to the topic of the work.
Detailed comments:
Chapter: data collection
Line 183 - Weather conditions, are air temperature and wind direction not included?
Chapter 2.2.:
How much data was used to build the models? Maybe flowchart chart will be helpful ?
What program was used to build the models?
Line 219 The authors write: inhalable particle matter (PM10). Is PM2.5 not already?
Table 1
What does PM2.5 in the second column (LogPM2.5 row) mean?
Line 238 wind (max, minimum, average, wind speed, wind direction?)
Line 279-280 - it is influenced by an increase in the UV value. I propose to supplement the information at the level of professional literature
Line 294 – significance level <0.5???
Conclusion:
The manuscript is not printable in its current form. The article requires a rebellious redrafting in the introduction, discussion and conclusions section. Authors must also make additions and changes to the material and methods chapter.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is well written, the statistic is performed according to an econometric-type analysis which is not familiar to me, but I think it could be a correct approach. Nevertheless it needs some improvements such as informative material concerning the database used (AQI of the period considered, some details may be reported as additional info), so that, apart from reading the statistics analysis results one can figure out which was the situation (some plots could also help). Also the references should be added to take into account of the state of the art of the studies on lockdown effects.
Some minor corrections have to be made (a list of some changes follows), and some other issues should be addressed:
- Line 123: there is plenty of studies conducted all over the world, maybe some more references could be added (Bassani et al., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12141-9; Tobías et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138540; Venter et al., https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060673)
- At line 135 it is said that meteorological conditions are rarely involved in analysis, maybe some more research should be made. Some articles include an evaluation of meteorological conditions effect (for instance Zhao et al., https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00304)
- Table 1, 16th row, 2nd column there is written PM2.5 instead of the value
- Concerning the peculiarity of ozone behavior there are articles concerning the effects during lockdown (for instance Sicard et al, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139542)
- On the language:
Line 215: instead of grasp maybe obtain would be better;
Line 270: I don’t like the expression “falling the most” maybe it’s better “decreasing the most”
Line 296: instead of principal maybe should be principle.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author has successfully addressed all the comments, I suggest accepting the manuscript in its current form with no further revision.
Author Response
Thanks for your advices.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The revised manuscript in current form is much better than the previous version. However, it still requires some corrections, e.g.
Line 21: is PM10, should be PM10
Line 47: is NO2, should be NO2
Line 233-236: is O3, NOx, should be O3, NOx
Table 1, line PM2.5(Log) (lag 1): is 9428, should be 9,428
Please check and correct in the whole manuscript.
After corrections, I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you. We've corrected articel accordding to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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.
