Life Cycle Assessment Analysis Based on Material Selection in Sustainable Airport Buildings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. This paper aims to measure the environmental impacts of the buildings by determining the building materials used. I personally think that the author's research is valable, however, the following suggestions could improve your paper.
1. The abstract is too long and need be enhanced. It has to address briefly and describe aim, object, procedure, results and important findings of novelty accordingly.
2. The introduction starts from research aims and lacks sufficient explanation and discussion of the motivation and significance of the research. The research background also needs to be introduced to show the significance of the research.
3. Many papers are reviewed in section 1.1 to show the materials used in structures with a focus on sustainability. But there are few words to explicitly discuss why the research gap should be concerned.
4. Sections 1.2 and 1.3 introduce Sustainability and Sustainable Buildings, Sustainability Certificates; LEED & BREEAM, which help readers know the basic knowledge of the research. These sections could be put in the start of the introduction.
5. In Page 9, lines 325-334, More details about the The life cycle analysis steps could be provided.
6. Section 4 shows little about the results. Also, discussion of the results needs to be enhanced.
7. Please indicate how the obtained research results can be used in practice? How the research method can be used in future research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
File attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting because of subject LCA. But this article needs some revision.
IN item 1.1 I recommend better organizing ideas on the topic under discussion. That it is organized by type of construction or evaluation model.
1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 present definitions that are not significant for an item. There is no discussion.
Item 1.5, this needs to be more detailed with more discussion of the topic Life Cycle Analysis Approaches and Tools.
Other items can be adjusted depending on adjustment item 1.
Author Response
File attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a good intention to fill the gap they find in the literature.
LCA studies can provide relevant information to decide and in this case for the selection of construction materials.
I have several recommendations and corrections to do:
Line 27 Concrete or steel?
Line 31 If these 3 materials are sustainable? Why are they?
Line 64 what is LDA? Define it
Line 95 once a term is defined and its abbreviation (LCA) is written, the abbreviation continues to be used throughout the text.
Line 97 this conclusion is obvious. In [5] does it refer to what are those materials?
Line 114 what is YDA? Define it
Line 119 what is LSA? Define it
Line 112 GaBi is a database? Or LCA software
Line 169-170 the wording is not clear
They should review the use of semicolons (;) throughout the text. I suggest it be replaced by comma (,)
Lines 211 to 213 must include the citation for this statement
Line 245, what is the criterion to have defined these three categories? And not others
Line 248 use the term LCA
Line 250 is LDA or LCA?
Line 252 I do not know if they talk about LCA, what is YDA
Line 266 better define the scope of the Ecoinvent database. They seem to suggest that it is only used for construction
Line 315 review the steps of the LCA methodology, there are 4 and not 3. Mention them
Line 359 In LCA we do not speak of a production unit but of a functional unit, referring to the function it fulfills to be compared. You cannot compare 1 ton of concrete with 1 ton of wood or with 1 ton of steel except based on its function, which in this case is structural, so we could speak, for example, of m2 of constructed area. Justify by talking about 1 ton.
Line 414 is also a ton of wood?
Line 418, what is the product you refer to that needs water? And what is the production process? Clarify
Line 461 has the same figure 6 in figure 7, edit
Line 467 what are YDA modules?
Line 508 I do not think that is the reason to evaluate wood in structures. What would need to be reviewed would be its structural resistance to support the constructions. Edit
Each of the materials has different production processes that depend on the function they will fulfill. For example, in the case of wood, what are the products used in the airport structure? Beams? Pillars? Slats? Each one would have a specific production process and its environmental impacts may vary. Therefore, we talk about a functional unit and not tons of a certain material. Please explain for each material what specific processes you refer to find the value of the impacts.
Author Response
File attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
