Indoor Air Quality Improvement in Public Toilets at Railway Stations in China: A Field and Numerical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully reviewed the paper entitled " Field and numerical studies on indoor air quality improvement of public toilets in railway stations”. To start with, I am satisfied that the manuscript contains original material and has the potential to make an interesting contribution in the field. However, before I recommend its publication, the authors should carry out the following, revisions:

·       Information should   be provided on the equipment used to measure pollutants  (especially ammonia).

·       One important issue that the authors should address is the poor use of references. I find the use of only 26 references, for such a well-researched topic, unacceptable. The authors should make a serious attempt to acknowledge previous work carried out in the field and aim to include at least 40-50 references. Examples of references that the authors are encouraged to use are shown below. The authors should improve this part and add similar references.

 

Ø  Li, M. et al., 2023. Use of computational fluid dynamics to study ammonia concentrations at pedestrian height in smart broiler chamber clusters. Agriculture (Switzerland), 13(3) doi:10.3390/agriculture13030656

Ø  Zoras, S. et al., 2012. Solar radiation and CFD photochemical modeling in the urban canopy. Solar radiation: Protection, management and measurement techniques (pp. 119-148)

Ø  Liu, X., et al., 2023. Development of reduced and optimized mechanism for ammonia/ hydrogen mixture based on genetic algorithm. Energy, 270 doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.126927

Ø  Moumtzakis, A., et al., 2022. Experimental investigation of thermal bridges and heat transfer through window frame elements at achieving energy saving. Energies, 15(14) doi:10.3390/en15145055

Ø  Zhang, et al., 2023. Numerical study on liquid ammonia direct injection spray characteristics under engine-relevant conditions. Applied Energy, 334 doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120680

Ø  Khan, D. et al., 2023. Experimentation and numerical modeling of SCR spray droplets pre and post impingement on a mixer plate. Fuel, 336 doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126788

 

 

·       The novelty of the manuscript should be highlighted better. What are the key new insights that this paper reports? Likewise, the abstract and conclusions section should be improved.

 

I have carefully reviewed the paper entitled " Field and numerical studies on indoor air quality improvement of public toilets in railway stations”. To start with, I am satisfied that the manuscript contains original material and has the potential to make an interesting contribution in the field. However, before I recommend its publication, the authors should carry out the following, revisions:

·       Information should   be provided on the equipment used to measure pollutants  (especially ammonia).

·       One important issue that the authors should address is the poor use of references. I find the use of only 26 references, for such a well-researched topic, unacceptable. The authors should make a serious attempt to acknowledge previous work carried out in the field and aim to include at least 40-50 references. Examples of references that the authors are encouraged to use are shown below. The authors should improve this part and add similar references.

 

Ø  Li, M. et al., 2023. Use of computational fluid dynamics to study ammonia concentrations at pedestrian height in smart broiler chamber clusters. Agriculture (Switzerland), 13(3) doi:10.3390/agriculture13030656

Ø  Zoras, S. et al., 2012. Solar radiation and CFD photochemical modeling in the urban canopy. Solar radiation: Protection, management and measurement techniques (pp. 119-148)

Ø  Liu, X., et al., 2023. Development of reduced and optimized mechanism for ammonia/ hydrogen mixture based on genetic algorithm. Energy, 270 doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.126927

Ø  Moumtzakis, A., et al., 2022. Experimental investigation of thermal bridges and heat transfer through window frame elements at achieving energy saving. Energies, 15(14) doi:10.3390/en15145055

Ø  Zhang, et al., 2023. Numerical study on liquid ammonia direct injection spray characteristics under engine-relevant conditions. Applied Energy, 334 doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120680

Ø  Khan, D. et al., 2023. Experimentation and numerical modeling of SCR spray droplets pre and post impingement on a mixer plate. Fuel, 336 doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126788

 

 

·       The novelty of the manuscript should be highlighted better. What are the key new insights that this paper reports? Likewise, the abstract and conclusions section should be improved.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented a paper titled Field and numerical studies on indoor air quality improvement of public toilets in railway stations.

The main quantitative findings are to be mentioned in the abstract.

The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.

The authors have to provide more details on the data acquisition system.

For the numerical study:

-        The numerical method is to be described with more details.

-        What is the used CFD software?

-        The solved governing equations are to be presented.

-        The boundary conditions are to be expressed mathematically.

-        The used turbulence model is to be justified.

-        A figure presenting the used mesh is to be added.

-        A grid sensitivity test is to be performed.

-        What is the convergence criterion.

-        The authors considered a 3D configuration; thus, some 3D profiles are to be presented.

-        Figures presenting the flow structures (streamlines) are to be presented.

The English level is to be improved.

 

The English level is to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have a few recommendations>

1. The title and the abstract should include the vel of the research, meaning the country/region of the study. 

2. figure 1, toliet is toilet. Check the entire paper for typo errors.

3. Introduction should be followed by a literature review section. They are not the same.  The introduction introduces in the topic and is brief meanwhile the literature review is a detailed presentation of other research. 

4. Put a source for figures and tables, even when you are the author. 

5. You have Discussions in section 2 but also in section 3. Explain why they could not be combined. Also, in the Discussion, you should present other papers that found similar or not-so-similar results and compare your results with theirs. Even if they did not research entirely the same aspects and only partially, the Discussion should mandatory present other findings from other authors.

6. Check the font in the conclusions. It is not the same. Conclusions should include limitations and future research directions too. The last paragraph with the theoretical and practical implications should be extended a little bit to emphasize the novelty of your paper and its usefulness. 

7. Check the guidelines of the journal for formatting the references. Also, by adding more references in the Discussion and adding the Literature review section, you should increase the number of references to at least 40-50. 26 references as you have now is not enough for the magnitude of your research. Focus on more recent research (2020-2023). 

Minor corrections like in figure 1, toliet is toilet. Check the entire paper for typo errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My previous comment has been well addressed in the revised manuscript. Therefore, the publication of this article on Sustainability is recommended.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper, which have increased the readability of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

After revision, the paper can be accepted for publication

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper, which have increased the readability of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the changes

1. I still do not see the source of the figures in the manuscript you uploaded. 

2. I accept your point of view regarding Discussion but in my opinion, they should be combined because it is confusing for a reader. Or if you leave them separate, add the difference in the subheadings to express the difference between them. I think it will help especially because you have many subheadings and long explanations in both the Results and Discussion sections. 

3. You should specifically name limitations using the word limitation!! 

4. References you added could have been more recent, after 2020. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf