Effect of Small-Scale Wildfires on the Air Parameters near the Burning Centers
, Mikhail Agafontsev 1,2, Vladimir Reyno 3, Yevgeniy Gordeev 3, Veronika Tarakanova 1,2, Pavel Martynov 1,2, Yuliya Loboda 1,2, Konstantin Orlov 1, Kirill Savin 1 and Andrey Dutov 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, this is not a solid work. It can be publishable only after significant modifications.
- There are no “take-home-messages” in the abstract. Include your important findings here.
- Line 30: [1, 2] these two references are not sufficient for the world. Include suitable citations regarding fires on a global scale.
Example: Amazon: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.059
Southeast Asia: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113871
Africa: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10325-2013
Mexico: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-6787-2011
- Include some recent relevant studies in the introduction. Make it more attractive. Find the research gap. Wisely, establish the need and objective of this study.
- The “Experiment” section is confusing. Clearly, state that what you have done here. If this related to any previous study, still briefly discuss the experimental setup, instrumentations, QA/QC of the datasets etc.
- Line 76-80: Discuss these in the result section. Not here. Emphasize on experiment and method here.
- You must provide the figures in high resolution. This applies to all figures. Make the levels and legends more legible.
- What is the further application or implication of your results? Discuss clearly. Try to make the results more impressive.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have presented below answers to questions:
(Point 1): There are no “take-home-messages” in the abstract. Include your important findings here.
Response 1: The authors agree with this remark. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 2): Line 30: [1, 2] these two references are not sufficient for the world. Include suitable citations regarding fires on a global scale.
Response 2: The authors are thankful for this remark and information. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 3):Include some recent relevant studies in the introduction. Make it more attractive. Find the research gap. Wisely, establish the need and objective of this study.
Response 3: The authors agree with this remark. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 4): The “Experiment” section is confusing. Clearly, state that what you have done here. If this related to any previous study, still briefly discuss the experimental setup, instrumentations, QA/QC of the datasets etc.
Response 4: The authors partly agree with this remark. Refs. [42, 43, 46, 50], given in the text, describe the experimental equipment and its parameters. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 5): Line 76-80: Discuss these in the result section. Not here. Emphasize on experiment and method here.
Response 5: The authors agree with this remark. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 6): You must provide the figures in high resolution. This applies to all figures. Make the levels and legends more legible.
Response 6: The authors agree with this remark. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and the captions to Figs. 5, 8 and 10.
(Point 7): What is the further application or implication of your results? Discuss clearly. Try to make the results more impressive.
Response 7: The authors are thankful for this remark and information. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the study has clear merit as a valuable source of data. I believe you had a greater opportunity to analyze your own data either in the current paper, or in a subsequent publication, and I hope you will take it. In particular, I would like to know what the spatial range and relative frequency of turbulent scales are in various regions of the fire in as far, as you can unravel them.
I have only a few minor concerns:
-In general, the writing quality is acceptable, but there are a few typos that should be edited out, and the overall sentence structure is sometimes cumbersome from the perspective of a native English reader. The only textual error that must change is in line 75, where you state that the local conditions were controlled by the local weather tower, which is surely not the case. The word "control" is, however, a false cognate in several European languages that likely give rise to the confusion. Please verify your meaning in this case.
-The data were on a time-scale that will prove useful to some models, but too course for others. In particular, you clearly have wind direction and magnitude data on a more refined temporal scale. I strongly recommend you include this data in a tabulated form in as granular a form as your instrumentation allow in an appendix or online repository. In fact, a tabular, high temporal resolution of all your data would greatly increase the value of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have presented below answers to questions:
(Point 1): In particular, I would like to know what the spatial range and relative frequency of turbulent scales are in various regions of the fire in as far, as you can unravel them.
Response 1: The semi-natural experimental conditions do not allow comprehensive studying the flow structure in flame and assess the distribution of the turbulence scales in the flame for a number of objective reasons connected with the combustion front movement and the distances to the devices. Nevertheless, the laboratory techniques developed for assessing the turbulence scale in flame [50, 55] show large-scale turbulent structures in the flame under semi-natural conditions, which are also recorded in laboratory conditions.
(Point 2): In general, the writing quality is acceptable, but there are a few typos that should be edited out, and the overall sentence structure is sometimes cumbersome from the perspective of a native English reader. The only textual error that must change is in line 75, where you state that the local conditions were controlled by the local weather tower, which is surely not the case. The word "control" is, however, a false cognate in several European languages that likely give rise to the confusion. Please verify your meaning in this case.
Response 2: The authors are thankful for this remark. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text. The corresponding corrections are introduced in the text.
(Point 3): The data were on a time-scale that will prove useful to some models, but too course for others. In particular, you clearly have wind direction and magnitude data on a more refined temporal scale. I strongly recommend you include this data in a tabulated form in as granular a form as your instrumentation allow in an appendix or online repository. In fact, a tabular, high temporal resolution of all your data would greatly increase the value of the paper.
Response 3: The authors agree with this recommendation. According to the instructions for authors, we could not find the “Appendix” section. Therefore, “Data availability statement” section was added. These data can be available on request from the first, and the corresponding author.
Additionally, we attached a part of table data, which were obtained from monitoring posts for you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Significant improvement; not this can be accepted for publication.
