The Enhancement of Fire Safety in Small-Scale Senior Citizen Welfare Institutions Based on Fire Protection Defense-in-Depth Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript described the statistics of field study in small existing senior citizens' welfare institutes. The discussion is not adequate. The authors need to cross discuss the items, such as to investigate the relationship of number of multi-story of institutes and mobility of impaired seniors. Other comments are as follows.

1. Please give reference of the statistics of Taiwan's Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2020. (Line 52)
2. (Line 64) The RSET was compared with ASET. Please describe the results.
3. (Line 124) This study applied the theory used in Nuclear plants to seniors' welfare institutes. Is it proper? This risks in the two sites are very different. Please address the feasibility.
4. This study investigated 53 institutes in a city. Please characterize this city. Readers may not know if it is proper to apply the data herein to their cities.
5. Some figures are too large. It does not benefit the readers.
6. (Line 235) The ratio of 1/2 is used to assess the appropriateness of night staff. Any reference for the value of 1/2?
7. (Line 273-275) I do not understand the expression of not connecting with the floor but the ceiling.
8.  

  

Author Response

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper and your comments. Based on your comments, our paper has been revised as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript calls for minor revisions in order to improve its quality, because the methodology is clear and the assumptions made do not need to be checked in more detail. However, there are some aspects to be clarified before suggesting its publication.

 

1. Line 63-66 please elaborate on the issues related to the time of evacuation, i.e. time rset and time aset
2. Line 95-98 “Since the fire safety regulations are universal and apply to all institutions, the so-called legal institutions only meet the basic requirements. For the elderly with inconvenient mobility, the requirements should be even higher.” - please specify these requirements
3. Figure 1, Figure 2,Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 10, is poor quality. It must be improved.
4. Please change the description of Figure 6.
5. Chapter 3.4 - please describe the euroclasses. The chapter is off topic.
6. Line 255 Authors authors claim that: „The smoke released by a fire is a major contributor to casualties.” Please add references like e.g. DOI 10.15199/62.2017.7.4, DOI 10.15199/62.2017.5.24, DOI 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.070
7. Conclusions section is written in chaotic way and should be reorganized to clearly point out the limitation of current knowledge, and also the scientific goal and contribution of this study. Define better conclusions, it should be vary vague and support better what the innovation is, unique finding of this work as compared to similar wokrs in international literature done through the years.
8. The titles of references have a different format, the title of the article is written in capital letters at the beginning of words, others only in lower case. Also, the standardized format of presentation in the journal's name. Because names have written in a different format, one is not abbreviated, others are not.
9. The English language calls for a revision by an English native speaker. There are some syntax and grammar errors.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper and your comments. Based on your comments, our paper has been revised as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

n/a