Impact of Apartment Tightness on the Concentrations of Toxic Gases Emitted During a Fire
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting experiment and potentially very useful, but there are a few gaps that need to be addressed, as follows:
As full scale fire tests were conducted, how does the fire development look like? It would be useful to see a plot of HRR vs time graph for each case. In each case, was there a flash over? In order to make a fair comparison, the fuel package in each case would need to be the same or at least comparable in regard to their quantities and properties. Also, the arrangement of items in the fuel package should be identical, or at least very similar. Otherwise, fire may spread differently, which may affect different fire products generated at different times. Likewise, the ignition source and location should be the same for each case. A clearer fuel package arrangement/layout of each room is useful to support the experiment. Also, a list of items used as the fuel package. A CFD simulation such as using FDS maybe useful to show the fire dynamics, particle movement in each room, etc. This is also a good method of validating the experiments and the observations/measurements.
Other minor comments:
The English language and expressions need a bit of work to improve its readability. There are a few unusual fire engineering terminologies that are not commonly used in the English language, which should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are a few improvements that need to implemented in the present paper:
1 - The English writing is very poor. Please consider a major revision in this aspect.
2 - The authors should include, in their review, work done by other authors including experimental and numerical simulations of for the type of problems under analysis.
3 - The differences between the sealed room an the ventilated room are not clear. How much ventilation is provided for the ventilated room? Are the windows and door fully opened in the ventilated case?
4 - Although the authors describe instrumentation for measuring gases concentration, temperature (thermocouples and infrared cameras) and visualization, only gases concentration data is analyzed.
5 - The graphs line types should follow a more consistent and clear criterium, e.g., solid lines for sealed room and dashed lines for ventilated room.
6 - I suppose the authors only did this experiment once - nevertheless it would be nice to have some comments on the reproductibility of results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper reports findings from an empirical study, comparing results from two different scenarios. The scenarios being compared, the experimental set up, and the results of the experiments are described to an acceptable level of detail. The findings indicate that there is potential for contribution. Nonetheless, the paper in its present for has several shortcomings that need to be addressed:
The results are based on one test each for the two test scenarios. Thus, the results at present are findings from a specific experimental case and cannot be generalized. This changes how the entire result is presented (as an experimental/simulated case study), including the title, abstracts and conclusions. Continuing on the previous point, there needs to be a section discussing other factors or case-based factors that may influence the results. For example, does the interior layout or the arrangement of furniture influence the results? Similarly, in the non-sealed scenario, will the external conditions such as humidity, wind speed, etc influence the results? Please elaborate known limitations of the study and the experimental set-up. The discussion needs to be richer. What are the implications of these findings?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for review and suitable suggestions.
The article is supplemented with a brief discussion on the impact of various external and internal factors on fire development (lines 332-341). In addition, a few sentences were added regarding the reproducibility of the study (lines 342-346) as well as many different changes in line with the suggestions of the reviewers aimed at increasing the readability of the work and enriching the discussion related to the results obtained.
Correction of English language will be made by the editors at the request of the authors.
I hope our answers are enough and satisfying you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A much better version. I suggest another review of the English language for readability. Otherwise, I am happy with the work as described.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author have addressed the comments from the previous round.
