Can Architectural Surfaces Capture Atmospheric Particulate Matter Like Trees? A Design Strategy to Mimic Leaf Traits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article fails to reflect values in scientific area. The method is not clearly described. The result is weak. In general, the paper is difficult to be understood.

Author Response

The article fails to reflect values in scientific area. The method is not clearly described. The result is weak. In general, the paper is difficult to be understood.

1. We carefully considered the reviewer’s concern that the paper fails to reflect values in scientific area. However, all the methods used in the research were clearly stated in the paper, and the methods have been used by other researchers in the field as well. We hope the revision helps the reviewer to understand our research better.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents interesting research recently emerged as a significant environmental problem role in reducing PM pollution in the city on the problem of PM absorption and formation of synthetic structures and surfaces imitating leaves- synthetic leaf structures.

The method, research purpose and results are described in a clear way.

However, it is suggested to change the title of the article, formulating the research problem without using the question in the title.

In the part concerning research on greenery parameters, references and information should be supplemented with articles presenting results on leaf area coefficient and leaf characteristics.

A de-definition of the term "architeconic surfaces" is needed.

Figure 4 is not very clear and should be corrected.

It is worthwhile to add more details on the method of producing "artificial leaves" with an explanation of the reason for choosing this method and materials and the durability of such structures.

The purpose of the study was to investigate absorption and compare surface characteristics and structure layout, but the issue of PM neutralization is worth adding to the discussion. Considering surface performance, multiple uses, and consequences of absorption and storage.

It is also reasonable to consider other leaf characteristics and properties, including oxygen production, which the synthetic leaves in the presented study do not address.

The discussion can add information about the potential implication of durable PM-absorbing materials and surfaces in building, architecture, and urban planning.

Author Response

1. However, it is suggested to change the title of the article, formulating the research problem without using the question in the title.
2. In the part concerning research on greenery parameters, references and information should be supplemented with articles presenting results on leaf area coefficient and leaf characteristics.
3. A de-definition of the term "architeconic surfaces" is needed.
4. Figure 4 is not very clear and should be corrected.
5. It is worthwhile to add more details on the method of producing "artificial leaves" with an explanation of the reason for choosing this method and materials and the durability of such structures.
6. The purpose of the study was to investigate absorption and compare surface characteristics and structure layout, but the issue of PM neutralization is worth adding to the discussion. Considering surface performance, multiple uses, and consequences of absorption and storage.
7. It is also reasonable to consider other leaf characteristics and properties, including oxygen production, which the synthetic leaves in the presented study do not address.
8. The discussion can add information about the potential implication of durable PM-absorbing materials and surfaces in building, architecture, and urban planning.

Revision Notes:

1. We carefully considered the reviewer’s concern that the title of the article should not include a question. However, the question, can building surfaces capture atmospheric PM like trees, clearly shows the starting point of the research. If the journal does not restrict a question to be a title, we hope to use the current title. 
2. We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added sentences in line 44-47.

Previous studies have investigated various parameters of the leaves that affect the capturing efficiency of PM. The shape, size, orientation, and micro morphology of the surface are found to be the effective parameters

3. We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added sentences in line 67-69.

The term architectural surfaces in this research refers to the surfaces that can be applied to the buildings and the infrastructures. 

4. We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added sentences in line 159-161. Figure 4. is fixed.

When a planar surface is folded to form a volumetric surface, its size seems smaller from a plan view. However, all three surfaces have exactly the same overall surface area. 

5. We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added sentences in line 115-119.

All the materials used in this experiment are selected in order to control the influence of additional variables. Using the same fabric, without any pleats or folds, produced artificial leaves with exactly the same surface characteristics and roughness.1 The cotton poplin stiffened with rice glue reflects the characteristics of leaves as well. There was no shape deformation during the pre-treatment process, and the synthetic leaf withstood well without damage throughout the experiment. For the accuracy of the experiment, the synthetic leaves were used only once.

6. We carefully considered the reviewer’s concern that the issue of PM neutralization should be addressed. However, PM neutralization goes beyond the scope of this ​​research. The topic of this research is focused on the morphological feature that affects adsorption of PM and its effect when applied to architectural surfaces.
7. We carefully considered the reviewer’s concern that the issue of the tree's other characteristics (ex. Oxygen production) needs to be addressed. Trees have many advantages besides the absorption of PM. However, a building cannot imitate all the advantages of trees. This research focuses on the application of the adsorption mechanism of PM from leaves to architectural surfaces. Advantages such as photosynthesis and oxygenation were excluded from our study as we believed that other researchers were sufficiently dealing with physiological aspects of the trees.
8. We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added sentences in line 347-351.

The results of this study have confirmed that it is possible to improve the PM capturing performance of the architectural surfaces by changing their morphological characteristics. This study shows the possibility to develop durable PM capturing materials and surfaces applicable to the buildings and infrastructures in urban environments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

1) This paper appears to be an interesting contribution to research on the impact of “architectural surface” patterns on the “Particular Matter (PM) capturing performance”, based on the “Trees’ ability to capture atmospheric PM”, suitable for the international peer-reviewed journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050);

 

2) However, there are several spell checking, formatting and writing issues that should be addressed by the authors. See, for instance, the “examples” listed below:

• Lines 29, 31, 32, 35, etc., REFERENCES in the TEXT: CHECK FORMATTING RULES;
• Lines 92-96, ‘AREA OF THE LEAVES’: CHECK THE NUMBERS (FORMATTING and VALUE);
• FIGURE 2. ‘Three-Dimensional Schematic Diagram of the L Pattern and S Pattern’: No references to this figure have been found in the text;
• Lines 120-121 and FIGURE 3: CHECK THE SIZE OF THE ‘MAIN CHAMBER’???
• FIGURE 4. ‘Architectural Surfaces with Different Complexity’: No references have been found in the text; ALSO pay attention to text formatting rules;
• FIGURE 5. ‘Changes in the PM2.5 Levels Inside the Chamber by Cluster Patterns’: No references have been found in the text;
• FIGURE 6. ‘Changes in the PM10 Levels Inside the Chamber by Cluster Patterns’: No references have been found in the text;
• FIGURE 7. ‘Changes in the PM2.5 Levels in the Chamber by Surface Type’: References to this figure have not been found in the text;
• FIGURE 8. ‘Changes in the PM10 Levels Inside the Chamber by Surface Type’: References to this figure have not been found in the text.

Author Response

• Lines 29, 31, 32, 35, etc., REFERENCES in the TEXT: CHECK FORMATTING RULES;
• Lines 92-96, ‘AREA OF THE LEAVES’: CHECK THE NUMBERS (FORMATTING and VALUE);
• FIGURE 2. ‘Three-Dimensional Schematic Diagram of the L Pattern and S Pattern’: No references to this figure have been found in the text;
• Lines 120-121 and FIGURE 3: CHECK THE SIZE OF THE ‘MAIN CHAMBER’???
• FIGURE 4. ‘Architectural Surfaces with Different Complexity’: No references have been found in the text; ALSO pay attention to text formatting rules;
• FIGURE 5. ‘Changes in the PM2.5 Levels Inside the Chamber by Cluster Patterns’: No references have been found in the text;
• FIGURE 6. ‘Changes in the PM10 Levels Inside the Chamber by Cluster Patterns’: No references have been found in the text;
• FIGURE 7. ‘Changes in the PM2.5 Levels in the Chamber by Surface Type’: References to this figure have not been found in the text;
• FIGURE 8. ‘Changes in the PM10 Levels Inside the Chamber by Surface Type’: References to this figure have not been found in the text.

We agree on the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.