Seasonal variability of PM<sub>2.5</sub> composition and sources in the Klang  Valley urban-industrial environment

Amil, Norhaniza; Latif, Mohd Talib; Khan, Md Firoz; Mohamad, Maznorizan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5357-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5357-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5357-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 8

Research article

|

29 Apr 2016

Research article |

| 29 Apr 2016

Seasonal variability of PM_2.5 composition and sources in the Klang Valley urban-industrial environment

Norhaniza Amil, Mohd Talib Latif, Md Firoz Khan, and Maznorizan Mohamad

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Apr 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Sep 2015)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C9889: 'Referee comments on manuscript by Amil et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2015
RC C10922: 'Review Amil et al. 2015', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Dec 2015
AC C12402: 'Answer to Reviewer Comment', Mohd Talib Latif, 14 Feb 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Mohd Talib Latif on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Mar 2016) by James Allan

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Mar 2016)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 Mar 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Response to comment on General comments: What is the uniqueness specifically? Is this the first measurement campaign of this length or first to cover all four seasons or first measurements in this specific area? It would also be good to highlight the uniqueness and importance in the abstract in addition to it being already in the introduction.
Response to comment on Abstract, page 26424, line 22: Where is the data from? A monitoring station or were other groups making these measurements at the same time and location?

Response to comment on Pages 26433-26434, Sections 2.5.2. and 2.5.3: The response is fine but it might be good to mention this in the manuscript. Also, my meaning was about the fact that Ca was used for the source apportionment method but not for the EF analysis. If you had had higher recovery of Al, I assume that it would have been used in both analyses. Are there any limitations from using different elements for different analyses or is it only an element that has high recovery and shown to be useful for that purpose that matters?

Response to comment on Page 26435, Section 2.5.4: How did you set these species as being 'weak' or 'strong'? In my experience it has been done by increasing the error associated with data in question. Is that the case here?

It might be useful to explain what various terms are for non-PMF users such as Fpeak and bootstrap.

This is unclear. Were 9 different seed values looked at or was the solution set for seed 9 chosen as the final solution? If it's the former, then it would be good to mention whether there was any variability or not between the solutions, where little/no variability indicates a stable solution. If it's the latter then justification is needed. Seed values are random starting points of the model so I tend to disagree with a solution set being chosen at a particular seed value as this doesn't really mean anything as the solution depends on the starting point. Similarly, why was the fPeak of 0.5 chosen? Were comparisons made with external measurements? Typically the solution set at fPeak=0 is the most physically meaningful. The fPeak parameter is there to test rotational ambiguity.

New comment regarding figures: The figures are still very hard to read; the quality needs to be improved so the figures are clear as they are currently very blurred.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (30 Mar 2016) by James Allan

AR by Mohd Talib Latif on behalf of the Authors (09 Apr 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 Apr 2016) by James Allan

Download

Article (4722 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

This study investigates the PM_2.5 variability in the Klang Valley urban-industrial environment. Source apportionment analysis reveals two major contributors of PM_2.5 in the study area: secondary inorganic aerosols and biomass burning. The chemical constituents and sources of PM_2.5 in this study area were greatly influenced and characterised by meteorological and gaseous parameters which largely vary with season.

Seasonal variability of PM2.5 composition and sources in the Klang Valley urban-industrial environment

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Seasonal variability of PM_2.5 composition and sources in the Klang Valley urban-industrial environment