An Article on Green Firefighting Equipment in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
The article is very general and philosophical. In addition, the authors rely on banal and obvious things that everything in the world is interconnected and, in particular, architecture with fire safety; and that BIM - covers all engineering. With the correct application of BIM, the very purpose of the article is meaningless - green design and fire safety will be designed at the very first stage and will be interconnected.
The article does not contain a pronounced goal and objectives, not ascertaining the achievement of the goal and objectives in the conclusion.
Drawing 1b - does not refer directly to the article, what is the point of knowing that the fire is extinguishing, we are not talking about the extinguishing time.
Drawing 2 is very commonplace.
The positions of item 281 are all obvious.
Positions p. 300 - 311 are obvious, etc.
p. 4.3 is obvious.
How could the article be improved?
1. Do not be scattered about all the topics at once, focus on one topic (extinguishing and green roofing and facades, etc.), or apply to a magazine with a philosophical specialty, where specialists will have a very general idea of ​​fires and green building.
2. A very good example with Taiwanese hospitals. Expand it. Add extinguishing schemes, drawings, evacuation calculations, etc. More specifics. How does green design in numbers affect the fire safety of facilities?
3. When it comes to statistics, you need graphs and diagrams. Make them just on the basis of real objects, about which a little is said in the article, and data from the literature.
4. Photos and drawings, etc.

5. The annotation should not contain links to figures (Fig. 2).

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to modify. I have worked hard to improve the content. I hope that the language can fully convey my respect and gratitude to you. The response is as follows and revised manuscript.

The article is very general and philosophical. In addition, the authors rely on banal and obvious things that everything in the world is interconnected and, in particular, architecture with fire safety; and that BIM - covers all engineering. With the correct application of BIM, the very purpose of the article is meaningless - green design and fire safety will be designed at the very first stage and will be interconnected. The article does not contain a pronounced goal and objectives, not ascertaining the achievement of the goal and objectives in the conclusion.

Revised as 204-209. BIM can transformed into the obstacle (OBST) object parameters of FDS [25] to solve the problem of building modeling. I am interest in that issue, so describe some statement in this article.

Drawing 1b - does not refer directly to the article, what is the point of knowing that the fire is extinguishing, we are not talking about the extinguishing time. Upload error, after correction, the PDF is the correct version. Revised as 97-101.

Residential fires and subsequent reconstruction will increase the carbon dioxide emissions of the building's entire life cycle by 2% to 14%, and the carbon dioxide emissions during the fire and reconstruction process will also increase, especially as the burning time increases. Once the fire burns independently and enters the growth stage, the heat release rate (HRR) will be proportional to the CO2 emissions.

Drawing 2 is very commonplace. Revised as 137-141.

The most common ones among these green designs are new building materials but cause fire safety doubts, and photovoltaic (PV) system but causes electrical fire problems. These all could lead to serious fire problem. As a result, the issues concerning the life safety and rescue operations safety in fires have arisen. The description simplified as shown in Figure 2.

The positions of item 281 are all obvious. Revised as 291.301,303

The three dimensions of sustainability & ref. [26]. Please let me keep the figure 3.  Revised as 303.
Positions p. 300 - 311 are obvious, etc. Revised as 311-323.

4.3 is obvious. Add the ref.【34】to explain the statement. Revised as 325-334.
How could the article be improved?
1. Do not be scattered about all the topics at once, focus on one topic (extinguishing and green roofing and facades, etc.), or apply to a magazine with a philosophical specialty, where specialists will have a very general idea of ​​fires and green building.

A: Because this is a review of fire & green building, we will discuss related issues more extensively, and then focus on fire safety. Thank you for your comments, Thank you for your suggestion, it has benefited me a lot. I have revised it as the red words in the text.

2. A very good example with Taiwanese hospitals. Expand it. Add extinguishing schemes, drawings, evacuation calculations, etc. More specifics. How does green design in numbers affect the fire safety of facilities?

It does not require generators and main pumps than ordinary sprinkler system. Water saving system + simple sprinkler system for the season of cost down and fire safety.    Revised as 174 -180

3. When it comes to statistics, you need graphs and diagrams. Make them just on the basis of real objects, about which a little is said in the article, and data from the literature.

Extract the data from the figure, table in the reference.

4. Photos and drawings, etc.

The data well cites from ref, so the review article uses fewer figures. It discusses the inclusiveness of sustainable construction and fire safety, and emphasizes that communication between these two groups is beneficial.

5. The annotation should not contain links to figures (Fig. 2).

Upload error, after correction, the PDF is the correct version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the article should consist a review on green firefighting equipment. The title itself does not reflect the content of the article. In abstract, the Authors state, that they will try to study the intersection of green technologies and fire safety. Moreover, the article does not consist of sufficient number of reference. It was filled with too general statements. Detailed descriptions/opinions/facts are too rare. In opinion of the reviewer, the text is too loosely connected with the intended content of the article. 

Despite the fact that the reviewer is not a native English speaker, it is clearly seen, that the article requires broad English editing. There are whole sentences unable to be understood. There is a lot of incorrect vocabulary used. THe sentences are often written against grammar rules. 

In general, the text is underdeveloped, as regards language, but also units, structure, the names of the sections, the cohesion is missing, too general statements and lacking references give an impression of the text constituting general popular science article instead of review article.

Among most important remarks, the following should be found:

• abstract: grammar check! sentence order! colloquialisms should be avoided in scientific papers. e.g. 'concept of paper are disscussed', 'we hope that...', 'disadvantaged asylum groups' (here and in text), 'relatively high that directly', '...so be carefull'
• 48-49: whole sentence requires correction
• 'burn deaths' - improper terminology
• 63-64: whole sentence requires correction
• 'advanced countries' - term 'developed countries' is commonly used
• there is a definition of 'green building' missing at the beginning of the article (only one def. is found in section 4.). Is thermal insulation enough? zero-energy building? or water saving? 
• sec. 2.2.: buildings or rather technology?
• 81: 'make people think' - colloq.
• 'Is green building more or less fire-safety' - editing required
• 86-87 - grammar / whole sentence not understable 
• acronyms/abbreviations should be explained either in the beginning of the article or in first use (not unified in the article), e.g. 'photovoltaic (PV) systems' - later only the abbreviation should be used. A lot of abbreviations are not explained of full name / abbreviation is used interchangeably
• 'fuel-burning RVs' - incorrect term ('internal combustion engines'). what is a RV? - not explained
• 96-100: whole sentence require rephrasing
• '2 and 14%'? what does it mean? 
• HRR - correct meaning should be used
• fig.1.: quality, size, arrangement - requires correction! missing description (a,b) next to the figures. Abbreviations left without any explanation
• 3.1.: cohesive titles are recommended. Here, both parts of the title are not reflecting the content of the section, in my opinion.
• 118: some 'nursing home' is quoted. The reader has no idea what about it. The reference is not present. The same shows up a couple of pages ahead (168-), but also without sufficient explanation.
• 121-135: too loosely connected with the topic. Is it only about PV systems?
• 'solar panel' or PV system should be used - terminology
• 'rescue safety' - incorrect term. more likely 'rescue operations safety' or 'fire operation safety' should be used.
• fig. 2 - not supported by the text. in my opinion, the figure does not discuss the topic at length. e.g. how 'fire load' is connected to the green/red design? is 'fire problem' completed? how about societal impact? losses? Why 'carbon'? Instead of 'carbon dioxide' of GHG in general? 
• 138-140: not possible to understand the sentence, also English editing necessary!
• 141: I do not agree. Consider fire prevention separately from fire losses. 'traditional fire safety'? unclear, what the Authors meant.
• 'loss of fire', 'can assessed', 'commercial interruption insurance claims' - English editing is really necessary. 
• Class A - depending of the country (fire code). Reference needed.
• 'water is easy to obtain'
• in the paper, SI units should be used. Authors use SI / imperial interchangeably. An attention should be used to upper and lowercase letters. e.g. 2266 kw/mol? J/kg*K should be used
• 'collected master stream'?? 
• sprinklers are supposed to limit the fire growth instead of extinguishing the fire!
• what is NFSA? did you mean NFPS? reference needed! in which country the association is registered? 
• 163-164: how about the costs? how about the emission of CO2 or GHG in general, during manufacturing stage? Without any proof/ reasoning, such statements (a lot of them in text) are nothing but arbitrary statements (not supported by facts) - it should not happen in review articles.
• 'flood damage of buildings' - flood has external causes
• 166: abbreviations should be used consequently, as (in that case) GHG was explained before. 
• 168-170: too scarce description of the incident to verify the conclusions, reference missing to find more details.
• 'L/m^2' and 'gal' - use (also correct) SI units, 'KW' - upper-lower case!
• 'room temperature 600'
• 'floor radiant heat flux' - should be corrected, as well as the unit
• 179/180 - should be the new paragraph. 
• 'OBST' - not explained
• 199-202: whole sentence
• 'green' and 'smart' buildings are two separate definitions - unclear intention of Authors after reading 206-210
• section 3.4.: decide on the title ('green and red cooperation' seems wrong); the section consists again of some general statements, that should be elaborated / supported by references...
• 'milder fires'?
• what is FIEP? no ref.
• the name of sec. 4 - no connection with the section text
• 4.1. - title to be altered
• 237-235: whole sentence, including ' classification of the site use', 'environmental familiarity', 'vulnerable evacuees' - complete mess.
• 'ventilation control combustion'
• 'fully development combustion stage' - improper term, not coherent even with the figures!
• 'hard to burn' / 'non-flammable' - use technical standards' terminology
• 253-255 - whole sentence!!!
• 255- : details missing, all thermal insulation materials? the paper should describe 'green technologies', what are typical thermal insulation materials and are they somehow different from traditional buildings? it should be clearly stated. 
• 266: a. how 'population growth' impacts evacuation??; b. sentence 266-277 not understandable 
• 'security gap' - fire safety and security are separate terms
• 268-270: how about the fire codes?? despite rich/poor inhabitants, the buildings must fulfill minimum requirements described by the national fire codes!
• 271-: how cyber attacks affect fire safety? one example is given later, but without any satisfactory explanation nor reference, so the coincidence with the paper topic is unclear.
• 4.2 'resiliency' ? rather 'resilience'. 
• what is 'us national academies'?
• 293: again fig. #2? why the description above the figure this time? the title requires modification. Why the arrows? the upper part suggests that ecology, social (grammar!), economic (!) interconnect and affect.. affect what? The figure not complete and not supported by the text.
• 294-: how is it connected with the green buildings??
• 'climate environment', 'global technology' - terms
• 4.3. disagree. fire code has the impact on minimal fire safety requirements, also price. The designer usually closely cooperate with fire prevention office / expert to fulfill national fire code. If different in Authors' country - should be elaborated. 
• 4.4. - title - editing necessary!
• 307-309 whole sentence to be rephrased
• 314-323: never heard of using raw materials in construction like this. Is it to worry fire experts? Usually the new material (e.g made of recycld materials) must have sufficing certificate (fire safety related) - if different in Authors' country - should be elaborated.
• 324-329: the sloppiness of the section seen: units, missing equation, missing references. 
• 330-333: disagree: mainly dependent on fire codes binding during the construction
• 338-339 - whole sentence
• 343-: whole sentence
• 'firefithers should be carefull...' ?!
• continuous power supply possible only for DC side of the PV system.
• 353-356: indeed DC arcs are harder to be extinguished, but the sentences are required to be rephrased. 'voltage will continue to maintain'?
• 5.2 - font size and formating! 
• ' the causes of internal PV systems' - ?
• is the aging related to increased fire risk? proof (e.g. reference) needed
• is 'sloping of roof panels' a reasonable risk?
• 'unable to completely power off'??
• 369-373: unable to understand
• 378-384: most of Pv systems are on-grid with no batteries. However, toxic hazard remains mostly due to toxic additives to the PV cells
• 'It is often better to use all areas to install PV systems as much as possible' - not able to understand this sentece
• 5.3: 1) why not to use water? there are technical standards available, e.g. DIN / VdE
• 'dry and full gear with SCBA' - is it possible during fire operations? water jet = wet gear. full usually means WITH SCBA
• 'do not rush out of water' ??; units!; not only water mist is possible (see above)
• 'Do not touch or destroy PV system unless necessary' - and if necessary be electrocuted? why to destroy at all?
• 403-407: disagree: architects / designers usually cooperate with fire experts closely.
• 'We hope that we don't have to sacrifice fire safety' - colloq.
• 408-412 - whole sentence
• 412-: gray water usually contains considerable content of surfactants. How does it affect the environment? Are these more harmful, compared to water originating from fire? Without any proof, the statement is just the arbitral Authors' opinion. 
• 424- as stated above
• 'so be careful of electric shock' - I believe every one is. Colloquialism. 

In general, the paper consist of loose thoughts not necessarily connected to proposed title. As for review article, it contains not sufficient number of references, also not adequately linked and justified. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to modify. I have worked hard to improve the content. I hope that the language can fully convey my respect and gratitude to you. The response is as attachment and revised manuscript.

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has not changed fundamentally, it was corrected in particular. I am an adherent of fire safety in construction, I teach and work in this area, therefore, the more articles in this area, the better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have put a lot of work to develop the paper, according to reviewers' remarks, e.g.:

• definition of 'green technology' was proposed and explained
• the paper have been edited, many major grammatic and terminological drawbacks are taken care of.
• the abbreviations were explained, the structure was modified.

Some of my previous remarks were misunderstood. Also some of them were not taken care of, which, in my opinion, must be changed, as some parts of the paper consist of unclear or simply incorrect statements. Still the paper needs to be elaborated to fulfill minimal requirements. Further remarks are given below:

• Section 2.2.: my intention was not to propose the new name of the section, I wanted to indicate, that not necessarily 'green buildings' are against fire safety, but 'green technology' might be. Previous name was acceptable, consider changing 'green building' into 'green technology' in original section title.
• 81: still the sentence requires editing (more or less than what??)
• in my opinion, fig. 1 still requires correction (poor quality, different lines used in both parts of the drawing, etc.)
• fig. 2: still too loosely connected with text. still 'carbon' is being emitted. Font too big. 
• 161-...: please distinguish 'solid stream' from 'master stream' in fire operations
• I suppose 'dm^3' should be used instead of 'L'; 'kW' instead of 'kw'; also in sec. 5.3: 'Pa' is correct SI unit of pressure. 
• I'd say 'interference' instead of 'cooperation' in that context (section 3.4 title)
• 276: I still don't see the connection between the 'population growth' and how 'slow' evacuation (in case of fire) increases the risk of fire?
• sec. 4.2. despite not being an native speaker, I believe 'resilience' should be used here.
• 292: 'us national academies' were change to 'the national academies'. Maybe just "according to the literature...' would work, as the reference is used. 
• fig.3: still grammar changes required. I suggest to use 'ecology', 'society', 'economy' or 'ecological factors', 'societal factors', 'economic factors'. 
• sec. 5.3: I don't agree. As mentioned before, there are standards, e.g. DIN VdE 0132 that allows solid streams with sufficient safe distance. Also 'fog stream' should be used instead of 'water mist' - these are two different types of stream, not to mention that 'water mist' won't be able to reach the object 6-10 m away! 
• I still disagree with the usage of gray water. As it usually consist of surfactants, it might be dangerous to firemen (dropped resistivity of the fire stream) and cause serious secondary losses (in the building), as well as may interfere with the environment. (conclusion #2)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf