Identification of Wind-Induced Particle Resuspension in Urban Environment Using CFD Modelling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the article, the authors deal with the extremely current issue of using CFD modeling in the analysis of the spread of pollution in urbanized areas. The article is at a good level.

Comments:

Line 362, 409 411 wrong created chapter reference. These references must be modified.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. You can find a response to them in the attached file. Besides that, manuscript undergo a extensive english revision

Reviewer 2 Report

The allover quality is great! Several comments here 

1) could you please explain a little bitt more about equation 5, which terms represent resuspension flux from the surface and which terms characterize the initial surface concentration?

2) Figure 2, what is 3,4,5,6, and 7, please indicate clearly in the caption.

3) line 409-411, please replace the words there with English.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. You can find a response to them in the attached file. Besides that, manuscript undergo a extensive english revision

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed work is really interesting and has a new scope of CFD. Please incorporate the below suggestions in order to enhance the viewability of your manuscript furthermore:

1. In line 20, you mentioned that "However, most of the particles stays in the canyon, what can cause resuspension to pollute 20 the air repeatedly." Please check this sentence once again. Is it "which can cause resuspension to pollute 20 the air repeatedly"?

2. Please check and correct the terms such as "we" and "our" imposed in your article. Some of the lines under the introduction, along with citations, also incorporated these aforesaid terms. As a reader, I got confused about these statements. I doubted whether the authors provided these statements or extracted them from the literature survey.  (Especially please refer to lines 32 and 35 ). 

3. Please expand CFD in line 13 as well as line 56.

4. Please use the representation of "μm" in the same way throughout your manuscript. For example, in line 31, it was mentioned as "micro-meters", and in line 64, it was mentioned as "μm". Thus, please check and correct them accordingly. 

5. In lines 138 to 142, you may incorporate the author's name instead of the reference number. (For example, Author name et al.). Now, these lines are hard to understand so please do the needful.

6. Please cite Figure 1 nearby its' representation. Now, Figure 1, was cited in the result section.

7. Please expand RANS and LES in line 161. 

8. Under the k-ε turbulence model, which sub-model has been imposed in this investigation? Please provide additional information if possible. 

9. In line 189, you mentioned, "Mesh was designed to reach y+<5 in the regions of interest". How was this number 5 obtained? This y+ number is important for CFD computation, so additional information and references are needed. Please focus a lot on this statement. 

10. From Line 187 to line 199, a lot of confusion exists. Please provide additional clarification and references. How was 0.024 m achieved? If a computational tool is developed with this value, then relevant explanations from your end must be given. Since your problem is 2-D, please incorporate mathematical modelling for y+ attainment.  

11. Additionally, why 8 prismatic layers? It may be 5 layers. 

12. Please check and correct the grammatical error in lines 224 and 225.

13. According to successful outcomes and standard literature surveys, COUPLED algorithm and SST k-omega turbulence models are suitable for your problem. But you have imposed SIMPLE and k-epsilon. There is nothing wrong with these impositions, but as a creator, you must strongly justify your imposition. 

14. Please incorporate the exact reference in Equations. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. You can find a response to them in the attached file. Besides that, manuscript undergo a extensive english revision

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you one and all for this modification.