Effects of Return Air Inlets’ Location on the Control of Fine Particle Transportation in a Simulated Hospital Ward

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the “Effects of Return Air Inlets’ Location on the Control of Fine  Particle Transportation in a Simulated Hospital Ward” which is suitable for International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Anyhow, the reviewer would like to make the following comments: 

 1-  The authors must justify the chemical composition, morphology, density and concentration of the particles.

 

2.      2-An antivirus method is recommended in the conclusion section as future works

3.       3-I think there is a need for a summary section/paragraph that brings to gather the main ideas behind the purpose of this article in the end of results and discussion

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, a coupling STE model with the combination of gas dispersion model, Bayesian inference, and iterative ensemble Kalman filter is developed to achieve effective spatiotemporal gas concentration prediction and gas source estimation. The twin experiment is used to validate this model with high confidence. Moreover, a practical application framework is also proposed, which can provide technical supports for gas leakage emergency scenarios in utility tunnels. This is interesting and scientifically sound work. It can be acceptable after minor revisions.

1. For Section 1. The authors cited up to 8 papers for the first two sentences. If there are so many references to support it, it means that this is common sense in the field. And I think the common sense don't need specific references to support. This problem also appears below.

2. The authors cited several previous studies focusing on STE model. It is better to add more description of the advantage of this model.

3. For Section 4.3, the moving path schematic of mobile sensors needs more detailed explanation.

4. The "twin experiment" is a critical section in the validation of the proposed model. But author only present some related reference. It is better to supplement some necessary description.

5. Some papers in the manuscript are not in the reference list, please check carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have incorporated most of the corrections I suggested.
I conclude that the work qualifies for publication.