Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke Particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the article titled "Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning", the authors have connected measured values with the mondel prediction result. Everything was well described and correctly proven by the comparison with other sources.

However, I can't see much novelty and scientific soundness in this paper. The article gives little contribution to modern science and therefore, with regret, I suggest for this article to be rejected.

As for the specific comments, although I am not an expert in English, I would suggest proof reading of this article should it be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear, Reviewer 1.

The detail is in the section of response to the Reviewer 1. 

Point 1: I found that sections 2 & 3 should be re‐organized and be shortened. It may be easier for the readers if the authors define properly the mixture of regression model and the class- membership equation first before moving to the computation of the GINI and of the Polarization of subgroups. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are too long and can be significantly reduced. In section 2.1 the authors assume the condition u_k > u_j, but this does not appear anywhere else in the calculation of the mixture of regression model. After equation (10) all the other equations are not numbered. 


 

Response 1: This comment has been responded; please see in line 127-142 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 2: The probability for a given country h to be in a class k should be the proportion of observations (households) in country h that belong to the income class k. On page 9, the first equation (it would be easier for the reader if the equation is numbered) is not exactly the proportion of people because the authors take the sum of the probability. The interpretation of the equation in not obvious. Normally, after estimating a mixture of regression model we have for each observation its estimated probabilities to be classified into the different classes identified. What is often done is to classify a given observation into the class where its estimated probability is higher. In many software this is also the method used that gives us the proportion of people in each of the classes. The authors should explain the equation on page 9 and how to interpret it. Alternatively, they may use the proportion approach which will make the interpretation easier.

 

Response 2: This comment has been responded; please see in line 218-220 (Highlight Blue color).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

For text

Rows 19 and 45: “dry weight basis” instead of “dry basis”.

Row 23: “confirmed by higher values of” instead of “confirmed by higher in”.

Rows 26, 36, 42, 44, 54, 60, 71-72, 94-95, 169 and 194: English language revision.

Row 34: what is the significance of “sufficient quantity”? please reformulate.

Row 49: “The increasing of condensation”; the increasing of which parameter of condensation?

Rows 49 to 52: English language revision; please reformulate.

Rows 66-67: “at 103^oC for 24 hours”; was that enough to achieve a constant mass?

Rows 127 and 129: font size of parameters “m” and “q”, respectively.

Row 130: “could be calculated from”; please add “equations 6 to 9”.

Row 134: “which was the same as MMAD”:

• replace with “which was the same as for MMAD”;
• explain why this behavior.

Rows 16, 47, 140, 141, 151, 157, 169, 173, 182, 186, 197, 201, 210, 211, 229 and 231, replace:

- “was shown” with “shows” or “showed” (as the case);

- “was presented” with “presents” or “presented” (as the case);

- “were shown” with “shown/ shows/ showed” (as the case);.

Row 141: “Figure 2” instead of “This figure”.

Rows 151-152: “had a relatively influence”; “relatively” high or low influence? similar at rows 174, 186 and 202.

Row 152: “Figure 3” instead of “In this figure”.

Row 153: value of 750^oC is not visible on the graph.

Row 175: “smoke particles size distribution indicated a single-mode behavior”; please explain how this is deducted from Figure 4.

Row 188: please reformulate “every all”.

Rows 210 and 226: give explicit which are the 3-D properties on axes.

Row 224: replace “were” with “will be”.

For equations:

• no difference between equations 2 and 3;
• no difference between equations 6 and 8;
• no difference between equations 7 and 9;
• explain why are needed the same equations.

For figures

The quality of Figures 1-9 is not adequate. Information is not adequately visible.

Figure 3, row 166: delete “the”.

Figure 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9: add to the figures text the significance of the Run#1 to Run#5, as given in row 172.

Figures 6 and 8: explain the 3-D axes in the figures text.

Figures 6 to 9:

- explain the meaning of “a” and “b” figures sections in the figures texts

- be consistent with editing: either a) and b); or (a) and (b).

For tables

The font size form Tables 1 and 2 are not adequate (too big).

Author Response

Dear, Reviewer 2.

Title: Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning

 

The detail is in the section of response to the Reviewer #2:

 

Point 1: Rows 19 and 45: “dry weight basis” instead of “dry basis”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 20, 46, 66, 75, 160, 162, 183 and 192 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 2: Row 23: “confirmed by higher values of” instead of “confirmed by higher in”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 24 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 3: Rows 26, 36, 42, 44, 54, 60, 71-72, 94-95, 169 and 194: English language revision.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 29-30, 35-37, 43-46, 49-52, 60-61, 79-80, 181-187 and 196-198 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 4: Row 34: what is the significance of “sufficient quantity”? please reformulate.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 35-37 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 5: Row 49: “The increasing of condensation”; the increasing of which parameter of condensation?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 49-52 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 6: Rows 49 to 52: English language revision; please reformulate.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 49-52 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 7: Rows 66-67: “at 103^oC for 24 hours”; was that enough to achieve a constant mass?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 66-70 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 8: Rows 127 and 129: font size of parameters “m” and “q”, respectively.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; English language revision.  Please see in line 127-142 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 9: Row 130: “could be calculated from”; please add “equations 6 to 9”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 135 and 141 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 10: Row 134: “which was the same as MMAD”:

• replace with “which was the same as for MMAD”;
• explain why this behavior.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; English language revision.  Please see in line 128-142 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

 

Point 11: Rows 16, 47, 140, 141, 151, 157, 169, 173, 182, 186, 197, 201, 210, 211, 229 and 231, replace:

- “was shown” with “shows” or “showed” (as the case);

- “was presented” with “presents” or “presented” (as the case);

- “were shown” with “shown/ shows/ showed” (as the case);.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 17, 47, 145, 146, 156, 157, 162, 174, 177, 181, 183, 193, 197, 207, 211, 223, 225, 227, 228, 240, 242, 246, 248 and 282 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 12: Row 141: “Figure 2” instead of “This figure”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 146 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 13: Rows 151-152: “had a relatively influence”; “relatively” high or low influence? similar at rows 174, 186 and 202.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 156, 184, 197 and 212 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 14: Row 152: “Figure 3” instead of “In this figure”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 156 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 15: Row 153: value of 750^oC is not visible on the graph.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 158 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 16: Row 175: “smoke particles size distribution indicated a single-mode behavior”; please explain how this is deducted from Figure 4.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 185-186 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 17: Row 188: please reformulate “every all”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 199 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

 

Point 18: Rows 210 and 226: give explicit which are the 3-D properties on axes.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 220-225 and 239-243 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 19: Row 224: replace “were” with “will be”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 236-237 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 20: For equations:

• no difference between equations 2 and 3;
• no difference between equations 6 and 8;
• no difference between equations 7 and 9;
• explain why are needed the same equations.

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 127-141 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

•  

Point 21: For figures

The quality of Figures 1-9 is not adequate. Information is not adequately visible.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

Point 22: Figure 3, row 166: delete “the”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 170 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 23: Figure 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9: add to the figures text the significance of the Run#1 to Run#5, as given in row 172.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 24: Figures 6 and 8: explain the 3-D axes in the figures text.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 25: Figures 6 to 9:

- explain the meaning of “a” and “b” figures sections in the figures texts

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

- be consistent with editing: either a) and b); or (a) and (b).

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 26: For tables

The font size form Tables 1 and 2 are not adequate (too big).

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

Dear, Reviewer 2.

Title: Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning

 

The detail is in the section of response to the Reviewer #2:

 

Point 1: Rows 19 and 45: “dry weight basis” instead of “dry basis”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 20, 46, 66, 75, 160, 162, 183 and 192 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 2: Row 23: “confirmed by higher values of” instead of “confirmed by higher in”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 24 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 3: Rows 26, 36, 42, 44, 54, 60, 71-72, 94-95, 169 and 194: English language revision.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 29-30, 35-37, 43-46, 49-52, 60-61, 79-80, 181-187 and 196-198 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 4: Row 34: what is the significance of “sufficient quantity”? please reformulate.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 35-37 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 5: Row 49: “The increasing of condensation”; the increasing of which parameter of condensation?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 49-52 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 6: Rows 49 to 52: English language revision; please reformulate.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 49-52 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 7: Rows 66-67: “at 103^oC for 24 hours”; was that enough to achieve a constant mass?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 66-70 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 8: Rows 127 and 129: font size of parameters “m” and “q”, respectively.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; English language revision.  Please see in line 127-142 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 9: Row 130: “could be calculated from”; please add “equations 6 to 9”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 135 and 141 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 10: Row 134: “which was the same as MMAD”:

• replace with “which was the same as for MMAD”;
• explain why this behavior.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; English language revision.  Please see in line 128-142 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

 

Point 11: Rows 16, 47, 140, 141, 151, 157, 169, 173, 182, 186, 197, 201, 210, 211, 229 and 231, replace:

- “was shown” with “shows” or “showed” (as the case);

- “was presented” with “presents” or “presented” (as the case);

- “were shown” with “shown/ shows/ showed” (as the case);.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 17, 47, 145, 146, 156, 157, 162, 174, 177, 181, 183, 193, 197, 207, 211, 223, 225, 227, 228, 240, 242, 246, 248 and 282 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 12: Row 141: “Figure 2” instead of “This figure”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 146 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 13: Rows 151-152: “had a relatively influence”; “relatively” high or low influence? similar at rows 174, 186 and 202.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 156, 184, 197 and 212 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 14: Row 152: “Figure 3” instead of “In this figure”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 156 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 15: Row 153: value of 750^oC is not visible on the graph.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 158 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 16: Row 175: “smoke particles size distribution indicated a single-mode behavior”; please explain how this is deducted from Figure 4.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 185-186 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 17: Row 188: please reformulate “every all”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 199 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

 

Point 18: Rows 210 and 226: give explicit which are the 3-D properties on axes.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 220-225 and 239-243 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 19: Row 224: replace “were” with “will be”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 236-237 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 20: For equations:

• no difference between equations 2 and 3;
• no difference between equations 6 and 8;
• no difference between equations 7 and 9;
• explain why are needed the same equations.

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 127-141 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

•  

Point 21: For figures

The quality of Figures 1-9 is not adequate. Information is not adequately visible.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

Point 22: Figure 3, row 166: delete “the”.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 170 (Highlight Yellow color).

 

Point 23: Figure 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9: add to the figures text the significance of the Run#1 to Run#5, as given in row 172.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 24: Figures 6 and 8: explain the 3-D axes in the figures text.

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 25: Figures 6 to 9:

- explain the meaning of “a” and “b” figures sections in the figures texts

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

- be consistent with editing: either a) and b); or (a) and (b).

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

Point 26: For tables

The font size form Tables 1 and 2 are not adequate (too big).

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript ID: applsci-1172322 entitled “Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning” the authors aim was to study and predict total particle mass concentration and MMAD of smoke particles from para-rubber wood.

In general, I suggest that the methods used be more detailed. My biggest concern refers to the size of the dataset used for the construction of the model. In addition, it is not clear whether the model has been validated in any way or not.

Minor comments are reported below:

• Line 35: I suggest reporting the acronyms in full for the first time also in the text (and not only in the abstract).
• 1. Biomass fuel used: I suggest deepening and better report the methods used to measure the moisture content.
• 2. Sampling Methods: What does “5-6 pieces” mean? Are they 5 or 6?
• 2. Sampling Methods: How long did this process last?
• 2. Sampling Methods: How many measurement replicas have been made?
• 3. Temperature data value recording: I suggest specifying the characteristics of the instrumentation used to measure the temperature.
• 4. Particles size distribution: Line 89-93: Were any comparability tests carried out between Andresen "modified" for this situation and Andersen "under normal conditions"?
• Figure 1: The quality is too low (as for the other figures).
• 6. Modeling by response surface methodology: In addition to: wood moisture content and drying time can there be other variables that should be considered in this equation? Even if it has not been done, I suggest that the authors discuss this, perhaps in the discussion section.
• Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.: How much data were used for the construction of this model? It is not clear if only 5 replicas were made: in this case, I believe that the number is too low for the creation of a model of this type.
• Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5. Have the model results been validated in any way?

Author Response

Dear, Reviewer 3.

Title: Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning

 

The detail is in the section of response to the Reviewer #3:
Point 1: In general, I suggest that the methods used be more detailed. My biggest concern refers to the size of the dataset used for the construction of the model.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 82-83 (Highlight Green color).

 

 

Point 2: In addition, it is not clear whether the model has been validated in any way or not.

 

The model has been validated with the experimental results, please see R² in Figure 7 and 9.  

 

Point 3: Minor comments are reported below:

• Line 35: I suggest reporting the acronyms in full for the first time also in the text (and not only in the abstract).

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 37-38 (Highlight Green color).

•  
• Biomass fuel used: I suggest deepening and better report the methods used to measure the moisture content.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 63-70 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Sampling Methods: What does “5-6 pieces” mean? Are they 5 or 6?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 72-78 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Sampling Methods: How long did this process last?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 72-78 and 88-89 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Sampling Methods: How many measurement replicas have been made?
•  

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 82-83 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Temperature data value recording: I suggest specifying the characteristics of the instrumentation used to measure the temperature.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 85-89 (Highlight Green color).

•  
• Particles size distribution: Line 89-93: Were any comparability tests carried out between Andresen "modified" for this situation and Andersen "under normal conditions"?

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 174-180 and 272-273 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Figure 1: The quality is too low (as for the other figures).

 

Response: This comment has been responded.

 

• Modeling by response surface methodology: In addition to: wood moisture content and drying time can there be other variables that should be considered in this equation? Even if it has not been done, I suggest that the authors discuss this, perhaps in the discussion section.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 261-267 and 290-293 (Highlight Green color).

 

• Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.: How much data were used for the construction of this model? It is not clear if only 5 replicas were made: in this case, I believe that the number is too low for the creation of a model of this type.

 

Response: This comment has been responded; please see in line 82-83 (Highlight Green color).

•  
• Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5. Have the model results been validated in any way?

 

The model has been validated with the experimental results, please see R² in Figure 7 and 9.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This article can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, after the revisions to this work, the manuscript is improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf