You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Sustainability2025, 17(23), 10484;https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310484 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Ruixin Li1,2,
  • Tingshuo Lei1 and
  • Yujia Huo1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyses the comfort of the human body in an underground space of a TOD project in Zhengzhou, central China, through field specific parameter measurements and questionnaires.

Multiple inconsistencies are identified, and a range of suggestions is provided below for the authors.

  • Abstract is too long. It should be more synthetic.
  • Lines 228 – 233. The description of the individual questionnaires is not clear. How many people participated in the questionnaire survey – 16 (line 228) or? If each of the 16 persons completed a questionnaire at each 30 minutes for at least two days (working day and rest day) during the mentioned hours – from 10:00 to 20:00 (as the authors describe), the results should be 16*20*2 = 640 filled questionnaires and also two more days of experiment. The authors mention 413 valid questionnaires (177 passengers and 236 staff). Regarding the latter numbers, these are the numbers of the questionnaires undertaken by 16 persons in two days or?? And also it is not clear if the experiment was conducted for two days or for four days (e.g., questionnaires in two days and indoor measurements for four days??!).
  • Table 3. The information provided for cold stress category is not credible. Moderate cold stress for a range of temperatures between – 27 and – 40 degrees Celsius???
  • Many phrases are too long and very difficult to follow (for example, the sentence between lines 616-620). The entire paper should be revised and rewritten in a more concise style, with short and clear sentences.
  • Also in the Conclusions section, the authors should emphasize which is the generalized applicability of their study and how it goes beyond the limits of a very specific case study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Research on Integrated Thermal-Sound-Vibration Comfort in TOD Underground Spaces: A Field Study in Zhengzhou, China” (authors: Ruixin Li, Tingshuo Lei, Yujia Huo, Hanxue Li, Yabin Guo, Yong Li, Zhimin Guo) has been reviewed.

 

There are some suggestions and comments:

  1. Abbreviations should be avoided in the abstract, especially those that were not used again (AHP, EWM).
  2. The quality of Figure 1 is unsatisfactory.
  3. “The cumulative number of China Railway 55 Express (Zhengzhou) has exceeded 10,000” (row 56). Of what?
  4. Maybe it would be better to write the values in the same order: 10.962 million and 3.578 million (rows 55 and 58).
  5. “The results show that sound has a significant effect on thermal comfort, sound and quietness, and temperature has a significant effect on sound and quietness [36 - 37]”. Does it mean that the sound has an effect on the sound (rows 134-136)?
  6. The text inside Figure 2 needs to be written in the same style and edited: “1. Long temperature adjustment time; 2. …; 4. Increase in equipment load.”
  7. It was written: “The highest temperature is 6℃, the lowest temperature at night is -3 ℃, and the temperature difference between day and night is 9-12 ℃” (rows 179-180). Maybe “On average, the highest temperature is 6℃ and so on…”
  8. The quality of Figure 3 may be better. Especially the text quality.
  9. Why was the age range from 22 to 31 of surveyed passengers chosen (Table 1)? Is it representative?
  10. The information about the sensors was not given in Table 2. Maybe it would be better to remove that column from the table, because the photos are not informative.
  11. The quality of Figure 4 is poor.
  12. “The maximum sound is 108.4dB, which is already a serious sound pollution and will cause hearing loss” (row 316). It would be better to write “…may cause hearing impairment over a longer time interval”.
  13. It was written that “UTCI has seven different thermal stress levels throughout the year, as shown in Table 3.“ (row 425). 5+5 stress categories are given in Table 3.
  14. The authors should correct the stress categories regarding the temperature in Table 3.
  15. In the discussion chapter, the authors present the formulas and methods for the calculations, which would be more appropriate for the second chapter.
  16. The fourth chapter should end with generalizations or doubts.
  17. The conclusions are not clear. The research description needs to be detailed (for example, the time was not mentioned). The universality and application of the results also need to be discussed. The conclusions should be improved.

 

Conclusion

The results are interesting and original, and I think that this paper may be published in the journal after major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a detailed review of the work, we have come to the following conclusions:
The work lacks a clearly described scientific objective.
Many "elements" in the article raise additional questions and give rise to suspicions that there was another purpose for conducting instrumental measurements at the metro station. For example, it is not explained why Table 1 includes the body mass index (BMI) of passengers. Why are passengers divided into two groups by age? Why is information about the staff—who constituted the largest group of respondents—missing from Table 1? Why are the survey results, according to the questionnaire presented in Appendix 1 to the article, not provided? How were the questionnaire results interpreted for the data for the graphs shown in Figures 8–10?
These and many other questions prevent an assessment of the completed work.
We recommend revising and resubmitting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my observations. No further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the paper  “Research on Integrated Thermal-Sound-Vibration Comfort in TOD Underground Spaces: A Field Study in Zhengzhou, China” (authors: Ruixin Li, Tingshuo Lei, Yujia Huo, Hanxue Li, Yabin Guo, Yong Li, Zhimin Guou) has been reviewed.

 

It can be noticed that the authors revised, corrected, and added additional information to the paper. All comments and questions were analysed and answered. The manuscript was highly improved.

 

Conclusion

The results are interesting, and I think that this paper may be published in the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Considering that the authors have thoroughly revised on improved the content and presentation of this work, it can be recommended for publication.