Next Article in Journal
Prediction Model for Daily Reference Crop Evapotranspiration Based on Hybrid Algorithm in Semi-Arid Regions of China
Previous Article in Journal
An ISOMAP Analysis of Sea Surface Temperature for the Classification and Detection of El Niño & La Niña Events
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on the Influence of Fresh Air System of Range Hood on Kitchen Air Quality

Atmosphere 2022, 13(6), 920; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060920
by Xuefeng Xu 1, Liang Peng 1, Bingsong Yu 2, Zhenlei Chen 1,*, Fan Shi 1 and Haitao He 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Atmosphere 2022, 13(6), 920; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060920
Submission received: 23 April 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 2 June 2022 / Published: 6 June 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My detailed comments for the authors are as follows:

 

  1. The Introduction should include more references about recent research on fresh air systems in kitchens. Why is the fresh air system developed and analyzed?
  2. Have the authors conducted a grid independence analysis?
  3. Section 2.4: How did the authors determine the boundary conditions, such as the oil fume velocity, and temperature?
  4. What is the direction of the fresh air?
  5. What is the boundary condition for the human body?
  6. Figure 6: There has no any introduction about the experimental measurement. How did the authors measure the oil concentration? Where are the testing points?
  7. Many grammar issues existed in the manuscript. Please check more carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper introduces a kind of the range hood with the upper and the lower fresh air outlets. Authors evaluated the kitchen air quality based on the mean air age. It is found that the air quality could be improved when the fresh air system is switched on. After reading the manuscript, it is suggested that major revision should be performed.

 

The following comments are provided.

 

  • On Page 1, please check the expression “evaluate indoor air qualityaccording to the three elements”.

 

  • In the Introduction section, authors mentioned “the indoor air quality in badminton court of Wuhan Sports University”and “public toilets”. However, these topics are not related to the kitchen environment. Why don’t you perform literature review on the kitchen environment?

 

  • In this manuscript, the mean air age was adopted to evaluate the performance of the ventilation system. However, recent studies show that the smaller mean air age does not correspond to the higher pollutant removal efficiency in the kitchen, which can be found in the following paper: Song Lu, Bin Zhou, Jianzhong Zhang, et al., Performance evaluation of make-up air systems for pollutant removal from gas stove in residential kitchen by using a push-pull ventilation system, Energy and Buildings, 2021, 240, 110907. Please clarify this point clearly in the manuscript.

 

  • In Fig.5, you call “Boil fume”. However, as you said, you use the water vapour instead of oil smoke. Therefore, why don’t you use “water vapor”directly in Fig.5?

 

  • In 4.1 section, what is “ ANALYSIS modelound”?

 

  • As for Ref.[16], the English title is “Research on decay of turbulent kinetic energy in shear flow”. However, the title you used is “Study of the turbulent kinetic energy decay law in the shear flow based on the k-model”. Please check it carefully. You may find the detailed information at: http://xb.hust.edu.cn/paper-detail?id=8206

 

  • On Page 6, it is mentioned that “we need to complete a CFD flow field analysis of oil fume concentration of the kitchen environment and its calibration with the experimental data[16]”. However, when you read again Ref.[16], where can you find the experimental data about the oil fume concentration in the kitchen environment?

 

  • The difference between the upper and the lower fresh air outlets on the indoor environment was not given. The detailed mechanism should be presented. Also experiment should be performed and the experimental data should be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have fully addressed my comments, publication is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have replied to most of my questions. After reading the revised manuscript, it is suggested that major revision is still needed.

 

The following comments are provided.

 

(1)      The difference between the upper and the lower fresh air outlets on the indoor environment was not given. Authors only introduced the velocity and temperature boundary information. The detailed mechanism should be presented. Also experiment should be performed and the experimental data should be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop