All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I am glad to inform you of the acceptance of your revised version.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
I think the authors have improved the manuscript. Beside some grammatical mistakes and typos still there, it could be considered for publication in PeerJ.
No further comment
No further comment
No further comment
The three reviewers have suggested major changes and corrections to your manuscript. Please pay particular attention to those suggestions, revise your paper accordingly (if you don not agree with their comments pleas submit specific rebuttals with reasons) and resubmit the same. The reviewers have also suggested revisions to the language and grammar which you should consider in your revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The manuscript measured the 16 carbonyls concentration two sites in Beijing in early summer. The authors tried to indicate the contributions of potential sources with ratios and model. Eventually, the manuscript is well written and provides full technical information. However, there were two critical concerns. The first one is the quantification of acetone with DNPH is highly questionable, even this includes in TO-11A method. The artifacts have been widely reported in the recent literatures. So, the uses of acetone ratios and their associated source apportionment are doubtful. The authors should take account this factor. Second, very honestly, the data expression and use of C1/C2 and C2/C3 ratios are outdated approaches (>20 years). One advantage of this manuscript is shown the use of OBM. However, this section is very unclear and short. This manuscript must be greatly improved before consideration for publication.
Line 215: Acetone could be potentially coeluted with the derivatives formed between air oxidants and DNPH. Please check the following references. Even ozone could be removed by the ozone scrubber, other oxidants such as NO and NO2 reacted with the DNPH during the sampling.
Ho, S. S. H.; Ho, K. F.; Liu, W. D.; Lee, S. C.; Dai, W. T., Cao, J. J.; Ip, H.S.S. Atmo. Environ. 2011, 45, 261-265.
Schulte-Ladbeck, R.; Lindahl, R.; Levin, J. O.; Karst, U. J. Environ. Monit. 2001, 3, 306-310.
Williams, J.; Li, H.; Ross, A.B.; Hargreaves, S.P. Atmo. Environ. 2019, 218, 117019.
Line 213: When did these two peaks appear? Noon and when? The authors should also explain their different origins instead of elaborating the differences only.
Line 288-289: The discussion on the total quantified carbonyls are not critical. Each carbonyl has unique formation pathways and photochemical reactions.
Line 348-386: The uses of C1/C2 and C2/C3 ratios could be used as references but not accurate indices to illustrate the sources, particularly considering the concentrations of acetone could be overestimated.
Specific comments:
The molecular number on a chemical formula should be subscripted.
Please standardize to use O3/ozone, HCHO/formaldehyde in the entire manuscript.
Please aware the scientific figures expressed for all numbers. They are inconsistent
The paper was very clear, well written and easy to follow. There are a few sentences where there is some confusion in language for the reader and I tried to point this out for improvement. In addition, there were a few places to improve the background context and add context for those familiar with basic atmospheric chemistry but not with the specifics of why it is important to study carbonyls. The raw data and figures were shared and there were a few legends that needed correction or more information, which was pointed out in the detailed comments. But overall, the paper is to the point and direct, the data well presented, easy to follow, which is appreciated, and does not speculate.
The methods are described in sufficient detail except in a few places where more detail is suggested. I do think some more context is needed on the why it was important to study this city, and how the overall results here compared to other cities in the region or the country. What was the knowledge gap and what do we know now after this study? It seemed there was more that could be concluded from the data and I suggested where in the detailed comments. The sampling methods and chemistry were well done with sufficient information provided to be able to replicate. This was a strong point.
The data are robust and statistically sound. My main suggestions were to describe the differences between sites more in the Methods (it was hard to keep track of which was suburban and which wasn't, plus only 8 km apart, I wondered if they could be considered "different"), and to provide more context on what the results mean - should there be more research/sampling sites in the area, were these sites adequate to measure air quality in the future, is the city more or less impacted by carbonyls compared to others in the region or country? I was very curious as to the impact of traffic as a source, too.
I was also curious to know more about the comparison between the model and measurements.
The authors were very careful not to speculate, but it is OK to put results in context and think of possible sources, and possible recommendations for the future.
The reader appreciated the study's focus on measurement over modeling. It is critical to still go out into the field and measure to observe. The authors chose a very reproducible method and real world measurements of carbonyls are often lacking. I appreciated this work and look forward to see the revised manuscript.
This work investigated carbonyl compounds in ambient air in a coastal city (Fuzhou) in southeast China. Air samples were collected at an urban site (Jinjishan) and a suburban site (Gushan). The average total concentration of 16 carbonyl compounds at the urban site was 15.45 ± 11.18 ppbv, and the average total concentration at the suburban site was 17.57 ± 12.77 ppbv. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone were the main species detected in the samples, and acetone had the highest concentration among the species detected. The suburban site had a higher formaldehyde/acetaldehyde ratio and lower acetaldehyde/propionaldehyde ratio than the urban site, implying that biogenic sources potentially contributed to the carbonyl compound concentrations at the suburban site. The results are interesting in general. However, there are many errors and language issues that require a major revision.
1. Line 125, what was the sampling time? 2 hours? Please specify sampling time.
2. Was there any stability measurement for the samples stored for upto month?
3. Table 2, acrolein should not be 0. It might be due to within one month storage and transport. Please use below detection limit instead of 0.
4. Line 377 to 386, it states that “the lower the A/P value, the greater the influence of anthropogenic sources. The conclusion that “The A/P value at the JJS site was higher than the A/P value at the GSS site, indicating that the JJS site is was affected more by human activity than the GSS site.” is contradictory to the statement.
5. Also in the abstract about A/P value and GSS lower acetaldehyde/propionaldehyde
ratio than the urban site, implying that biogenic sources potentially contributed to the carbonyl compound concentrations at the suburban site.
6. Line 198, Please specify low and high temperature such as in Fig. 1.
7. There are many errors and language issues in the manuscript.
Line 91: 3-5 times that of Hong Kong changes to 3-5 times of that in Hong Kong.
Line 94, delete high activities in “The high concentrations high activities of carbonyl…”
Table 1 and 2: Spelling errors for crotonaldehyde.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.