IoT- and GIS-Based Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Dump Yards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper brings a differentiated approach toward construction and demolition waste. Through its results, it is possible to have valuable data for planning areas of regular and irregular waste disposal. The methods used are adequate to sustain the scientific discussion. We understand that the study can be published in its current form.

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very thorough, but needs additions in the content part to improve the quality of the publication. The following improvements are necessary:

- addition of information on what type of waste was processed at the recycling plant, in what average quantities. Construction waste is a broad term, did the waste include hazardous waste? Mixed construction waste or  rather selectively collected concrete rubble, wood, etc.?

- Supplementary information on the specifics of the recycling yard, including information on the machinery and processes that were carried out at the yard.

- supplementation of information on the methods used to measure selected indicators of evaluation, which may affect the results of measurements, e.g. whether the measurement involved the air temperature, whether it was a sensor that could be subject to heating, whether the test stands were open or closed, shaded, etc. Poor description of research methods is the weakest point of the publication.

- completing information on the detailed location of measurement points (e.g. by including a map with measurement points)

- section "data analysis" carries information on the tools rather than on the methodology of data analysis, I suggest renaming this section to applied tools

- Section "Spatial Variation of Air Quality Data" in point 3 in my opinion is not necessary. What is the purpose of including this information in this section?

- supplementation of information whether the presented maps include average values from continuous measurements, or critical values, or something else?

- reference of the obtained values to the permissible values in the environment

- an attempt to find out the sources of contaminants

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Respected Authors

I need to say sorry for my delay.

I had to read your contribution carefully because I'm personally involved in projects concerning waste dumps for mining industry. Mining and processing waste is even more dangerous, concerning water and air pollutions, than C&D waste.

Anyway, I appreciate your introductory part, founded on numerous references covering various aspects of C&D waste management. I slightly miss contributions underlining the possibility of direct reuse of C&D waste in the building site (like DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/95/2/022057). This concept helps to reduce both: problem with C&DW transportation to the waste yard and further pollution. I have an impression that you also neglected wide use of mining and construction waste in mining industry (e.g. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/869/3/032004). 

The methodological part seems to be free of major errors and is well documented. Concerning the discussion of results and further conclusions, please try to underline the specific local conditions (climatic) that might influence the spread of contaminations in the regions under study, I can believe that climatic conditions could be one of decisive factors and the one in India might significantly differ from the one in Europe and/or other regions. 

Sincerely

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments.

It seems that the work is improved and may be published "as it is now".

Sincerely

Author Response

Thank you sir for your valuable comments.