Verification of Performance Standards for Construction Equipment in Terms of CO2 Emissions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors carried out verification of performance standards for construction equipment in terms of CO2 emissions. Several years of field research on the performance of construction equipment (excavators) has been considered in this study to compare the outlays and carbon dioxide emissions reported in catalogues and in reality, on site in Hong Kong. The reported work is continuation of the pilot study, conducted by the 20 staff of the Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Science. The topic is of significance keeping in view the population’s health safety specially in densely populated areas. However, authors need to consider following points to revise the manuscript as potential publication.
· Authors mentioned in the result table 4 that fuel consumption and CO2 emission values have been assumed to get the results for comparative study. This table is of significant value and has been considered as base for the comparative study with the actual data on site. Authors need to mention the reference on which basis this data has been assumed.
· It has been assessed by the paper’s data that presented manuscript can’t be considered as research article as no novel study, conclusion or recommendations has been made in this study. The presented study is just the comparison of the catalogue’s data with on-site data. Authors need to include the novelty of the manuscript in the end of introduction and results.
Minor changes in English and sentence structuring is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our appreciations for all your effort put in reviewing the manuscript “Verification of performance standards for construction equipment in terms of CO2 emissions”.
We highly appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. Thank you very much for your kind words about our manuscript. Below you can find specific answers to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the results of field research on the performance of construction equipment (excavators) involving data obtained during the field survey in relation to the expenditures presented in the catalog of material expenditures usually known in Poland (KNR catalog). Civil engineering projects, all involve heavy construction equipment to carry out earthworks. This involves carbon dioxide emissions, which are harmful to the environment, especially in densely populated areas. In this regard, the research questions were formulated to calculate the difference between planned and actual expenditures that should be planned during the implementation of construction projects, and to prepare a further comparative study between the actual CO2 emissions determined on the basis of the site survey and the CO2 emissions determined on the basis of the criteria of the catalog of machinery expenditures. The paper cites a lot of national literature, but it is not innovative enough, collects fewer data, and does not reflect the core argument of the paper well in terms of analysis and summary, but the paper also has the following shortcomings:
1. line 111. The space after the number is too large and the formatting is not rigorous. Similar cases exist later, and it is recommended that they be revised uniformly.
2. line 133. wrong space in the middle of On relevant.
3. line 199, Table 1. total is not centered in the table and is not consistent with the formatting below.
4. line 203. there is a space error in the middle of are necessary. 12. line 211.
5. line 211. there is a space error after since;
6. line 222. The preceding serial numbers in Table 2 are uniform; suggesting consistent contextual formatting.
7. line 233. The rightmost column in Table 3 is not centered; suggest consistent contextual formatting.
8. line 341. should the Doi number be added to both the front and back of the text, please standardize the presentation of the document format.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
1. Line 11, summary section. it appears that you are missing a comma with a break before especially, especially in densely populated areas. Please consider adding a comma. There are more similar cases below, so check for changes uniformly.
2. Line 12, summary section. The singular verb has does not seem to agree with the plural compound subject. Strictly control and regulate emissions from construction equipment. Consider changing the verb to the plural form. More similar situations occur below, check for changes uniformly.
3. line 39. comma before Degree, the conjunction usage here seems to be incorrect, suggest revision. There are many similar cases below, so check and revise them uniformly.
4. line 71. the verb appears seems to be inconsistent with the subject. Consider changing the verb form.
5. line 134. The last clause uses an incorrect form of the verb costing. Consider revising it.
6. line 162. sanitary sewer network Consider a possible noun usage error and suggest adding an in front of it.
7. line 171. singular and plural usage of level may be problematic. suggest revising it.
8. line 211.the verb do does not seem to agree with the subject. Consider changing the verb form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our appreciations for all your effort put in reviewing the manuscript “Verification of performance standards for construction equipment in terms of CO2 emissions”.
We highly appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. Thank you very much for your kind words about our manuscript. Below you can find specific answers to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall:
Such an important area we have overlooked in research.
-The purpose as stated and what is being done is not clear. If you were to look at a gap between the predicted use and actual use, there is no comparison.
-rethink on using construction equipment broadly, you are only considering excavators, a construction machinery.
-In-text citation need improvement to keep the flow of the text. we usually do not pointed out as 'paper', 'item' , 'sources; in this format. Please refer to published papers to understand how intent citations are included in sentence structures.
Abstract:
Revisit the abstract to reflect on the completed study provide a succinct overview of the area of the study, research gap, methodology used, findings and the significance of the study. currently it does not fully provide and overview of what the study is about:
Introduction:
This section needs restructuring and writing. Currently, you have presented the literature on similar studies and also valuation literature.
- Presenting the current literature should point to your research gap and then support your argument. This should not be merely saying there is a work but critically presenting why that research is important in the context of your study.
-you have also give some exisiting valuation methods, again critically connect them and point to any gap or support your argument.
-suggest you present the subject area, highlight what we already know and what we do not know, this ia where you point to the research gap.
-then you can highlight why it is important to conduct this study.
- the valuation part is related to answering your research question, I feel it is best suited in methods section.
Materials and methods
- you should start this section by reminding the research question and demonstrating how you intend to collect data, analysis and synthesise in presenting.
-the calculation methods are not presented. there many aspects presented in the results, but how they are calculated is not given.
- also not clear what you have given information on cost valuation methods, they were not used.
-using a digram can quickly communicate to the reader your methodology framework.
Results
- this section should fit your purpose. write to reflect on the research question. and then provide the results to answer that question.
- Your main results should be a comparison of estimated and actual consumption of fuel.
-carbon emmission is based on the fuel consumption.
-why you presented cost valuation is not clear, since there is no reference in the methods and results.
Discussion
- this needs reworking
-the conclusions are not supported by the findings.
you state "The study shows that planned carbon dioxide emissions on the basis of KNR inputs are more than twice as low as actual emissions."
But I cannot see this in your results.
-also move the limitations into conclusions section.
Conclusions
- The first conclusion that there is a significant increase in carbon emissions in not supported form findings. then the question of "increase from what?".
- secondly , there is no framework shown, even though you claim there is a comprehensive framework. Also hard to generalise into all the construction equipment/machinery.
Need to improve how in-text citations are included into sentence structures.
Improve on writing style to maintain an academic voice.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our appreciations for all your effort put in reviewing the manuscript “Verification of performance standards for construction equipment in terms of CO2 emissions”.
We highly appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. Thank you very much for your kind words about our manuscript. Below you can find specific answers to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Congratulations to the authors for the article presented. In my opinion it is very interesting. There are only a few aspects that could be improved:
1. The abstract does not clearly explain all the parts of the article. The methodology is not explained and the conclusions are not detected. Nor does it specify the years of research. It does not cover all the parts.
2. The results section is not clearly explained. It abuses tables but lacks literature to explain them.
3. In the conclusions only the first paragraph is a conclusion. The rest are summaries and explanation of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our appreciations for all your effort put in reviewing the manuscript “Verification of performance standards for construction equipment in terms of CO2 emissions”.
We highly appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. Thank you very much for your kind words about our manuscript. Below you can find specific answers to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author's efforts are appreciated in revising the manuscript. However, the main issue is still same that manuscript work is unable to prove the novelty as no novel study, conclusion or recommendations have been made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and help in improving this article.
best regards Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Good job. I consider the article suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and help in improving this article.
best regards Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors effort's are appreciated in addressing the comments to their best of understanding. However, issue still remains same "article doesn't presented any novelty, recommendation or conclusive outcomes.
