There seems to be a subtext to this paper. A subsequent correction/addendum to the same journal reads: > The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not car

There seems to be a subtext to this paper. A subsequent correction/addendum to the same journal reads: > The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not carry out the research under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, nor in collaboration or consultation with any personnel at the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation of “University of Edinburgh” has now been removed from this work at the request of the Institution. In addition, subsequent to the publication of the Paper, Victor Timmers has disclosed a potential Conflict of Interest with regard to the work, namely: “non-financial support from Innas B.V, during the conduct of the study”. > The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. --- Innas B.V appears to be the same consulting firm where the first author works. Reading the paper full-text, you see a lot of policy recommendations and one wonders what the standing of the authors is for full-on policy recommendations, based on the very limited data in the paper. Namely, the analysis is really just using vehicle weight as a scale factor on a primitive PM2.5/PM10 "emissions/kg" relationship. Re-suspension of road dust dominates these particulates (in their model, anyway), and EVs and ICVs both do this, so any PM reductions by EVs are dominated by road dust kicked up by their larger weight. Here's a much more detailed review paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231018302711?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101... And here's a non-review that examines ozone emissions, but from a much more serious modeling point of view: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231019302183#bib33 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101...