Assessment of the Impact of Extinguishing with a Low-Pressure Fog Lance on a Fire Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article carried out four fire extinguishing experiments on two types of fog lances. The experimental results verify the effectiveness of fog lance in fire extinguishing. The parameters of the two types of fog lances are reported in detail in the article. This article provides a new idea for the development of water mist fire extinguishing equipment.
The main revisions are suggested as follows：
（1）There are many web pages in the references, and some URLs cannot be opened. It is recommended to add journals and other literature.
（2）It is recommended to add a photo of the fire experiment equipment before starting the experiment.
（3）It is recommended to delete the introduction to the lance parameter. Some parameters are less relevant to the research content.
（4）Please delete Figure 6 as it provides less information.
（5）It is suggested to add explanations to Figure 5 and Figures 11-12, which are difficult to understand. In Figure 11-12, only the change in temperature can be seen, and it is not clear what object has changed in temperature.
（6）Please mark the start and end time of fire extinguishing in Figure 7-10.
（7）Please condense the conclusions to highlight the main findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and well written, however, some changes must be made:
- Units in the entire article must be turned into SI, for instance: line 53 cm --> m; line 55 dm3/min --> m3/h, etc.
- Line 49: "There are only a few publications in the literature dealing with the testing of devices similar to those used in the following studies". I would like the authors to check the literature once again to be sure of this. In the current version, the research is related strongly to Polish conditions which makes the article very local. Having worldwide situations more recognized the authors can address their article to a wider audience. For instance, please check this: Aamodt, Edvard & Meraner, Christoph & Brandt, Are. (2021). Review of efficient manual fire extinguishing methods and equipment for the fire service.
- Line 325 - the procedure. The authors should give more details on this. Is it based on a Polish Standard? or on the Authors' new method?
- Line 357 - "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should 357
provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn" - it is unclear, why may? What does it mean? - There are two same chapters "Results" 3 and 4.
- In general: reading the manuscript the impression is like a reading of a technical report about the comparison of 4 different devices to find the best one for a particular situation. My suggestion to the authors is to emphasise the scientific value of the test done. What was state-of-the-art before their examinations and how their tests are beyond that level.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the article can be published in this journal after the author's revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the manuscript according to the suggestions, therefore, now it can be published.
