The Impact of Thermal Energy Storage on the Emission of Particulate Pollutants into the Atmosphere
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAttached please find the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the comments of the reviewers
We would like to thank you for the review of our manuscript. The recommended comments and additions are very valuable to us and will certainly significantly improve both the scientific message as well as the editorial appearance and readability of our manuscript.
Reviewer 1
- Why is there no specific data on PM2.5 in Table 3?
Table 3 presents data on air quality standards for PM2.5 and PM10 fractions applicable in the EU. For PM2.5, the standard does not specify the 24-hour limit emission value and the permissible number of exceedances of this value per year. The existing EU directive in this regard has been added to the list of references.
- What is the cause of a sudden rise in PM10 and PM2.5 in Figures 1, 2 and 3?
Periodic increase or decrease in PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations is mainly related to climatic conditions in the given shorter time periods, i.e. primarily to lower outside air temperature (higher heat production required for DHS means higher PM emissions), lower wind speed and lack of rain/snowfall. These factors are conducive to the increase in PM emissions and concentrations in ambient air. Appropriate literature and additions to the text were added in the revision of the manuscript. The most important in this respect is the observed decreasing trend in PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in subsequent years.
- What is the connection between the start and stop of the peak boiler and what are the specific conditions?
The CHP plants described in the manuscript are equipped with combined heat and power production units and peak-load boilers producing only heat. In time periods (usually if the outside air temperature drops below -10 °C, or on winter weekends), the demand of heat consumers supplied from DHS is so high and the demand for electricity does not increase significantly that it cannot be covered by combined heat and power units (heat and electricity are produced here with a constant coefficient of cogeneration). In such a case, peak boilers should be put into operation to cover this increased demand for heat from consumers. When this heat demand drops, the peak boilers are switched off.
- Why do the PM10 emission curves in Figure 8 for 2008 and 2009 increase and decrease, and what is the correlation?
The PM10 emission values for the analyzed CHP plant vary on a scale of 24 hours, weeks and months, and this depends primarily on the volume of electricity and heat production. These values are also influenced by climatic conditions, because, for example, a decrease in the temperature of the outdoor air translates into an increase in heat demand by DHS consumers, which is presented in the response to comment 2.
- What is the reason for the CI of Białystok CHP plant in 2010 and 2013 having almost the same value?
The CI values in equations 4 and 5 are given for the years 2010 and 2013, respectively. Corrections in this respect were made to the revision of the manuscript. The selection of years, i.e. the base year, i.e. before the TES assembly, and the comparative year after the TES assembly, should be characterized by similar CI values (i.e. climatic similarity and similarity in terms of the volume of energy production), so that the results of the comparative analysis are as representative as possible.
- Do Figures 10 to 14 take into account the diffusion effect of particulate pollutants in the air over time?
Yes, the effect of diffusion of particulate matters in the air over time has been taken into account, i.e. the figures in question show the spatial distribution of the spread of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air, i.e. the maximum concentration values of these substances averaged for a year and one hour, calculated for the ground level, depending on the distance from the emitter.
- The references should be expanded. Some new literatures might be help the authors to further deepen the understanding of reaction mechanism as well as newest developing in this field (Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 326: 116790 Regeneration mechanism of a novel high-performance biochar mercury adsorbent directionally modified by multimetal multilayer loading).
8 new literature items, including 4 from 2024, were included in the revision of the manuscript and added to the References
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the effect of thermal energy storage on emission of particulate pollutants was evaluated. Major revision should be performed.
Specific comments:
(1) The title is suggested to revise as "Impact of Thermal Energy Storage on Emission of Particulate Pollutants into Atmosphere".
(2) In Abstract section, more quantitative results about the effect of thermal energy storage on emission of particulate pollutants were encouraged to be presented. In addition, "In order to" should be revised as "To" for short. Similar revision should be performed with regards to the language issues.
(3) The layout of this manuscript should be revised. The Results section should be extended and revised as "Results and Discussion". The first four sections should be shorten.
(4) Figure 4 is suggested to be removed. The pictures of power plants were not necessary.
(5) How to verify the calculated results based on section 4, especially for the predicting results in section 6?
Author Response
Responses to the comments of the reviewers
We would like to thank you for the review of our manuscript. The recommended comments and additions are very valuable to us and will certainly significantly improve both the scientific message as well as the editorial appearance and readability of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2
- The title is suggested to revise as "Impact of Thermal Energy Storage on Emission of Particulate Pollutants into Atmosphere".
Suggestions to change the title of the manuscript were accepted. A new title, "The Impact of a Thermal Energy Storage on the Emission of Particulate Pollutants into the Atmosphere", was introduced into the revision of the manuscript.
- In Abstract section, more quantitative results about the effect of thermal energy storage on emission of particulate pollutants were encouraged to be presented. In addition, "In order to" should be revised as "To" for short. Similar revision should be performed with regards to the language issues.
The Abstract section of the manuscript revision has been shortened and reworded in accordance with the recommendations made
- The layout of this manuscript should be revised. The Results section should be extended and revised as "Results and Discussion". The first four sections should be shorten.
Sections of the manuscript have been shortened and reworded in line with the recommendations provided, and in particular the "Results" section has been expanded and corrected as "Results and discussion".
- Figure 4 is suggested to be removed. The pictures of power plants were not necessary.
The decision to remove Fig. 4 is left to the Editor.
- How to verify the calculated results based on section 4, especially for the predicting results in section 6?
Section 6 of the manuscript provides guidelines for the anticipated research work in order to use TES to reduce the nuisance of the smog phenomenon in the forecast meteorological conditions of the area affected by the analyzed CHP plant with TES.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The study examines the integration of Thermal Energy Storage (TES) in Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants serving District Heating Systems (DHS) and demonstrates how TES can enhance energy efficiency, minimize peak boiler operation, and substantially reduce particulate emissions, thereby contributing to improved environmental outcomes. The evidence presented substantiates the benefits of TES implementation. However, after reviewing the manuscript thoroughly, I recommend reorganising it to enhance clarity in the presentation of findings and to allow for a more streamlined interpretation of the results. Here are some suggestions:
1. The abstract contains excessive detail and should be revised to be more concise.
2.Correct the chemical formulas for CO₂, NOₓ, and SO₂, ensuring numbers appear in subscript format.
3. Present the data in lines 97-99 as a table for clarity; similarly, convert the information in lines 138-142 into a table format.
4. Rephrase the text in lines 109-112 to improve readability.
5. Remove the bullet points in lines 148-153, or replace them with numbered points.
6. In Tables 1 and 2, change the term "Together" to "Total."
7. Expand the paragraph in lines 182-186 to provide a clear explanation of the factors leading to reduced air pollution.
8. Consider renaming Section “3. Materials” to more accurately reflect its content. Additionally, please include descriptions of the PM measurement and monitoring methods, specifying how parameters are measured and at what distances from the CHP plants.
9. Clarify the results in line 387 by specifying the Comparative Index (CI) values for 2013, post-TES installation at the Białystok CHP plant.
10. The “Methodology” section is challenging to follow. One suggestion is to move “4.1 Factors affecting the reduction of emissions of pollutants” into a separate section. The “Methodology” section should focus solely on the study’s methods and tools without discussing results.
11. In the “Results” section, the presentation of PM₁₀ emissions in Figure 9 within section 5.1, followed by section “5.2 Quantities of emission of particulates,” is confusing. Additionally, the title of section 5.2 could be revised. The overall “Results” section requires reorganization, as crucial findings are currently embedded in earlier sections. This restructuring would improve clarity.
12. Section “6. Predicting the possibility of smog occurrence” largely summarizes literature without original results.
13. Section “7. Summary and Conclusions” is overly lengthy at 1.5 pages; please consider streamlining it.
14. Expand the reference list to include more recent studies, as the most recent citation currently is from 2022.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease improve English to express the research more clearly. Some paragraphs are not easy to follow.
Author Response
Responses to the comments of the reviewers
We would like to thank you for the review of our manuscript. The recommended comments and additions are very valuable to us and will certainly significantly improve both the scientific message as well as the editorial appearance and readability of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3
- The abstract contains excessive detail and should be revised to be more concise.
The abstract has been shortened and edited in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- Correct the chemical formulas for CO₂, NOₓ, and SO₂, ensuring numbers appear in subscript format.
The chemical formulas for CO₂, NOₓ and SO₂ have been corrected in the revision of the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- Present the data in lines 97-99 as a table for clarity; similarly, convert the information in lines 138-142 into a table format.
The data in lines 97-99 and the information in lines 138-142 were converted into tables in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- Rephrase the text in lines 109-112 to improve readability.
In order to improve readability, the text in lines 109-112 has been rephrased in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- Remove the bullet points in lines 148-153, or replace them with numbered points.
The bullet points in lines 148-153 have been removed and replaced with numbered points in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- In Tables 1 and 2, change the term "Together" to "Total."
In Tables 1 and 2, the term "Together" has been changed to "Total" in line with the recommendations provided.
- Expand the paragraph in lines 182-186 to provide a clear explanation of the factors leading to reduced air pollution.
The paragraph in lines 182-186 has been expanded in line with the recommendations provided to give a clear explanation of the factors leading to the reduction of air pollution. In addition, two literature items relating to the above-mentioned issues have been added to the text.
- Consider renaming Section “3. Materials” to more accurately reflect its content. Additionally, please include descriptions of the PM measurement and monitoring methods, specifying how parameters are measured and at what distances from the CHP plants.
According to the recommendations provided, the name of the section "3. Materials" was changed to "3. System description " Information on the methods of measuring and monitoring PM emissions has been added, specifying how the parameters are measured and at what distances from the CHP plant. In addition, one literature item referring to the above-mentioned issues has been added to the text.
- Clarify the results in line 387 by specifying the Comparative Index (CI) values for 2013, post-TES installation at the Białystok CHP plant.
The CI values in equations 4 and 5 are given for the years 2010 and 2013, respectively. Corrections in this respect were made to the revision of the manuscript.
- The “Methodology” section is challenging to follow. One suggestion is to move “4.1 Factors affecting the reduction of emissions of pollutants” into a separate section. The “Methodology” section should focus solely on the study’s methods and tools without discussing results.
We agree with the reviewer's suggestions. In the revision of the manuscript, among other things, the point "4.1 Factors affecting the reduction of pollutant emissions" was moved to the amended section "3 Description of the system".
- In the “Results” section, the presentation of PM₁₀ emissions in Figure 9 within section 5.1, followed by section “5.2 Quantities of emission of particulates,” is confusing. Additionally, the title of section 5.2 could be revised. The overall “Results” section requires reorganization, as crucial findings are currently embedded in earlier sections. This restructuring would improve clarity.
Sections of the manuscript have been shortened and reworded in line with the recommendations provided, and in particular the "Results" section has been expanded and corrected as "Results and discussion".
- Section “6. Predicting the possibility of smog occurrence” largely summarizes literature without original results.
Section 6 of the manuscript provides guidelines for the anticipated research work in order to use TES to reduce the nuisance of the smog phenomenon in the forecast meteorological conditions of the area affected by the analyzed CHP plant with TES.
- Section “7. Summary and Conclusions” is overly lengthy at 1.5 pages; please consider streamlining it.
Section "7. Summary and conclusions" of the manuscript has been shortened and edited in accordance with the recommendations provided.
- Expand the reference list to include more recent studies, as the most recent citation currently is from 2022.
8 new literature items, including 4 from 2024, were included in the revision of the manuscript and added to the References
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please improve English to express the research more clearly. Some paragraphs are not easy to follow.
As suggested, the English language has been improved. If the language corrections according to the Reviewer and the Editor are insufficient, the MDPI Author Services Language Editing function will be used to correct the English language.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the questions have been answered satisfactorily. I think the manuscript can be published in its present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved. It could be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for considering every comment and suggestion provided. At this point, I have no further comments to add.
