Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents the results of a study related to indoor particulate matter transfer in CNC machining workshop with different ventilation strategies. In my opinion, the topic is important and the paper presents interesting results both for researchers and practitioners. The paper is well-structured, the figures are well-drawn and legible. The language is acceptable, the technical terms are properly used. However, I have some minor observations and suggestions to improve the paper’s quality.

In my opinion, the Introduction section is well written. The authors have made reference to several important publications in the field. The research gap is well-established and clearly formulated.

What is the meaning of: “2.1.1. Subsubsection”?

Because the “Materials and Methods” section starts with the sentence: “A typical CNC machining workshop was selected as the research object in this study.” it would be better to highlight in the title that this paper is presenting a CASE STUDY.

Table 1: Why the accuracy is not +- or % from the measured value? Is the accuracy of the CO2 sensor 1 ppm in the 0-10000 ppm interval?

A series of notations and indexes are used, but no Nomenclature is attached.

Limitations chapter is missing.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to you point by point，please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors,

Bellow you can find my remarks:  

-        Please include literature that speaks of the placement of the ventilation system and its influence of removing contaminants, it would add to your literary review to move the topic of improving safety: e.g., DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20184400172

-        Is point 2.1.1 supposed to be named Subsection?

-        Please add the mesh quality indicators such as orthogonal quality, mesh skewness etc to show the mesh has a good quality. Also, you can mention what were the y+ function values.

-        In line 275 you day the deviation of the simulation is less than 15% which is acceptable – please add citation to prove this is not too much of a deviation.

-        Figure 7 – the writing on both axis is unclear, please add with better resolution

-        Line 472 and line 515 – expand the meaning of PPD and PMV in the text in brackets the first time they appear

-        Line 474 – when speaking of PPD you say that 10% is “ too high and difficult to Achieve” please explain why and why you can take a higher value.

-        In figure 12 the writing on the axis is a bit fuzzy, add better resolution pictures. Also, the horizontal writing on the graph merges with the columns next to it, maybe tilt it 90 deg and make it vertical.

-        Line 515 – please explain why you are speaking of PMV when before you only mentioned that the PPD will be taken under consideration. Especially that you usually calculate first the PMV and then after the PPD.

-        Line 527 – “Wang et al found from in-situ measurements…” add citation number in this sentence.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to you point by point，please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2142344
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Indoor Particulate Matter Transfer in CNC Machining Work- 2 shop and The Influence of Ventilation Strategies

In the reviewed paper, the authors performed numerical and experimental studies on the effects of particulate matter transfer and performance of various ventilation strategies on a CNC machining workshop. Numerical simulation is performed using ANSYS Fluent 19.0. It is noticed that 99% cumulative mass concentration of particles is distributed within 1.5 μm, and the release rate of particles from the full enclosure. The manuscript is well written, and may be published in the journal.

In the following few suggestions are given.  

Q1# It is suggested to add the absolute and relative uncertainty of experimental data.

Q2# The governing equations of CFD model should be added in the revised manuscript.

Q3# The vortex generation plots and relevant mechanisms may be added in the revised manuscript at different zones of computational domain in addition to Fig. 10.

Q4# Nomenclature and abbreviation section may be added in revised manuscript.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to you point by point，please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewer would like to thank the authors of the manuscript for the research presented. Workers' conditions are often affected by non-visible elements, which can pose risks in the medium term with consequent ills and productivity losses. The study tries to demonstrate that an adequate ventilation strategy can improve the indoor air quality of industrial spaces and consequently increase the sustainability of organizations.

 

The reviewer calls attention to the issues listed below that must be clarified:

It would be highly advisable to introduce a nomenclature list for easier reader understanding.

Throughout the text the number assigned to the figures does not correspond to the correct one. This must be corrected.

References: In general, the article presented presents recent bibliographical references.

Line 335. The graphical quality of figure 7 should be improved. Its very difficult to analyse the figure.

Line 472. The term PPD defined in the ASHRAE 55 standard is not indicated for the analysis of industrial buildings. Thermal stress should be analysed according to eg ISO 7933.

 

Line 514. I cannot verify in the figure the change in the value of PPD and PMV. This paragraph should be restructured to better explain the concept.

 

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to you point by point，please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Need extensive improvement. In the current form of the manuscript, it can not be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. The manuscript was revised intensively according to the comments from reviewers point by point. We expected your detailed comments on the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 6 Report

This paper investigates the particulate matter transfer and performance of various 13 ventilation strategies in CNC machining workshop. The paper is well written but it requires some corrections before publications.

1. What is new in the model and why it is considered?

2. The simultaneous citations in the paper like [4-7] may not provide good impact.

3. Interpret different levels of CNC machining workshop.

4. Discuss some prominent ways for the particle size measurement.

5. Numerical model does not describe the methodology. Please rearrange it.

6. What is the reason that particle size distribution of particles at different heights in the workshop varied slightly.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to you point by point，please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your reply   figure 12 - the numbers on the lower 2 graphs still clash, please improve.   bibliography number 13 is wrong (Kaźmierczak B, Szczepanik-Ścisło N, Ścisło Ł, et al. (2018). Air leakage modelling and its influence on the air
quality inside a garage. E3S Web of Conferences, 44.) - IT should be:
"Szczepanik-Ścisło, N., Ścisło, Ł. (2018) Air leakage modelling and its influence on the air quality inside a garage, E3S Web of Conferences, 44, art. no. 00172"

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you authors for addressing all the comments. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer#5:

Thank you authors for addressing all the comments. 

Response: Thanks for your comments.; we will be full of motivation in the follow-up work.