Environmental Impact of Building Drainage Systems: Analysis of Embodied Carbon Emissions in Terms of Code-Based Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Environmental Impact of Building Drainage Systems: Analysis of Embodied Carbon Emissions in terms of Code-Based Design” deals with the study of the influence of different methods of sizing PVC pipes for drainage systems and their relationship with the environmental impact through LCA analysis.

The article's topic is within the scope of the journal.

The abstract is well-written, highlighting the main results obtained and its contribution to the technical field. I suggest objectively highlighting the study's applicability to the field.

The keywords are appropriate.

The references used are relevant to the topic.

The document is well-structured and organized.

The literature review could be more in-depth, addressing other studies that have conducted similar work on the topic and their conclusions. Including other studies that have already performed LCA, their variables, and the challenges they faced, for example, would enrich the work.

- The European code was the most environmentally efficient, but do the authors also believe it is technically efficient?

The discussion of the results should be more in-depth, comparing them with other studies published in the area and relating the environmental impacts of each method to its technical advantages and disadvantages.

I believe it is important to include a text about the study's limitations in the conclusions.

Author Response

Please find my detailed responses to the reviewer comments attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SUMMARY  
An article on the environmental impact of building drainage systems is submitted for review. The authors analyzed actual carbon emissions from a design perspective based on regulatory documents.
The relevance of this study is high, as reducing carbon emissions in buildings is an important issue. This article has a scientific approach and practical significance. In particular, such tasks require an integrated approach that goes beyond regulatory methods. The authors presented an interesting approach and estimated actual carbon emissions based on calculations according to European, American, Australian and New Zealand standards.
Such research is important and contributes to sustainable development. However, I have some comments. They can be found below.

COMMENTS
1. The abstract does not reflect the scientific problem. The authors talk about practical applied problems of carbon emissions in buildings, as well as design issues. I would like the authors to say that not enough scientific research has been conducted on the impact of building drainage systems on the environment. In particular, no one has analyzed actual carbon emissions from a design perspective based on regulatory documents. Such a formulation of the problem would emphasize the need for this research. This should be added to the abstract.
2. A lot of information in the abstract is presented in the format of a list of what was done. I would like the authors to focus more on the scientific results, as well as the practical value. What exactly was obtained? Specific results should be shown, not the steps that were taken.
3. The keywords contain the abbreviation "PVC". I would like to see a full explanation of the abbreviation for those readers who may not have the information.
4. The "Introduction" section seems too small. It does not reflect the current state of the issue. The authors need to work on this section quite seriously. The listing of nine sources of literature on line 44 is especially puzzling. The authors have not approached the literature review responsibly; it needs to be significantly strengthened. The studies that were conducted earlier should be described, and their shortcomings and deficiencies should be emphasized.
5. The "Introduction" contains only 19 sources of literature. It would be nice if there were at least 30-35 sources of literature here. Then this review would correspond to the scientific level of the journal.
6. The authors are encouraged to add the research methodology in the form of a flowchart. What factors varied, what data was used to conduct the research, and what results were assessed? A flowchart of the research would help readers better understand the methodology of this article.
7. It would be nice if the "Methodology" section showed and justified the selected sources of data. For example, it would be nice if the authors emphasized why the standards that were studied were chosen.
8. The article lacks photographs of real objects. Do the authors have the opportunity to take such photos or add them to the article? Then the article will be more visual and interesting for readers.
9. I would like to see more analytics in this article. It is necessary to add a detailed analysis of the obtained results in the form of a "Discussion" section. It is necessary to present a comparative table with similar studies and show the main differences of the work done. I would also like to see the risks and limitations of the obtained results, as well as the remaining blank spots. What other deficiencies have not been studied and what do the authors plan to do in the future? Prospects for the development of the study should be shown.
10. The list of references, as already mentioned, should be expanded. It would be good to see at least 10-15 additional sources of literature over the past 5 years.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find my detailed responses to the reviewer comments attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the suggested modifications. The abstract was revised, making it more clear and objective regarding the work's contribution to the field. The work became more complete with the improvements the authors made, deepening the introduction by citing new references, providing more detailed methodology, deepening the analysis of results, and including the study's limitations in the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account all the reviewer's comments and provided comprehensive responses to the comments. The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements both scientifically and visually. The reviewer has no more comments and the manuscript can be published in the journal in its current form.