Review Reports - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Camel Hair Filters in Wind Catchers for Air Quality Improvement and Natural Ventilation Comfort in Vernacular Saudi Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Integrating Camel Hair Filters into Passive Wind Catchers: A

Field-Based Strategy for Dust-Resilient Ventilation in Hot-Arid

Architecture

The research field tests the effectiveness of natural fibres to filter airflow in wind catchers in Saudi Arabia. The topic is interesting and timely. The authors use a conceptual framework based on a biometric approach inspired by camel hair fibres; however, the methodology aligns with building science and a user-centric approach.

Authors should primarily improve the research by engaging more deeply with biomimetics and building science.

Please use scientific descriptions and process them more thoroughly in the paper; i.e., the wind catchers referred to here are the down-draft type.

The study reads like pilot research; there is little comparative parametric analysis, i.e., comparisons of these other types of filters with varying densities of natural systems. The authors note that many of the limitations are in the conclusions. need to be strengthened to make the article a journal paper. It is a work in progress. Several steps to the research design are as follows,

The first step is to set up an on-site weather station to monitor environmental conditions and to install temperature and humidity sensors inside the down-draft wind catcher, in the spaces served by the airflow. It is also important in a field study to examine the upwind and own-wind microclimates, as these affect performance. Plans and photographs of the building and its environment, along with occupant surveys, are important for understanding thermal Comfort and air quality satisfaction. Assess sand and dust storms against a severity index. Evaluate temperature and humidity measures against a psychrometric chart to evaluate Comfort.

The second step is to adapt the wind catcher and study several sand/dust storms. Observations of occupant behaviour and Comfort

The third step is a comparative analysis of the data from Steps 1 and 2.

The fourth step is valuation using CFB modelling test parametric variations, to optimise the filter and Comfort.

Detailed comments.

Title: Reflect on the central question in the research, which explores the air quality and the effectiveness of filters to maintain natural comfort ventilation in rural Saudi Arabia
Abstract:
1. Confirm evidence of (PM₁₀) capability of the filter is post-testing
2. Emphasis on a user-centric approach; the comfort index is vague. In this case, the Adaptive Model is relevant to a free-running building.
Introduction
1. Please consider changing Figure 1, as it seems out of place on line 94.
2. Add a section on the environmental conditions for the study line 140.
Literature review
1. Deeper analysis of the operation of down draft wind catchers, see a Special Edition in Architectural Science Review which deals with innovation in this area.'
2. 2.3 Explain more about the biomimetic approach, using either a direct or indirect approach.
3. Add a section on air quality guidelines and standards.
4. Line 322 adapts conclusions into research questions.
Material and Methods.
1. Align questions to methods.
2. Included diagrams of the location of the instruments
3. Expanded the discussion of ASHRAE comfort criteria based on the Adaptive model. 2.0 m/s is desirable for comfort ventilation; add references.
4. Expand and clarify the explanation of Table 10. Claims made should be justifiable
Architectural integration
1. Consider a less directional, more balanced summation.
2. Discuss the options for validation and triangulation.
3. Discuss sources of materials and circularity, ie, can camel hide be sourced at an industrial scale?
4. Include comfort and energy issues; i.e., look at holistic integration.
Conclusions
1. See previous comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please use scientific language

Author Response

Response to Reviewer-1 Comments

Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. We have carefully considered and incorporated all your suggestions. The revisions made in the manuscript in response to your comments are highlighted in red for clarity, and the line numbers referenced in our responses correspond to the final version of the manuscript.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comment 1: [The research field tests the effectiveness of natural fibres to filter airflow in wind catchers in Saudi Arabia. The topic is interesting and timely. The authors use a conceptual framework based on a biometric approach inspired by camel hair fibres; however, the methodology aligns with building science and a user-centric approach.]

Author Reply: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the relevance and timeliness of the research topic. The manuscript has been revised to further clarify the study’s positioning at the intersection of vernacular architecture, natural ventilation, and environmentally responsive material integration. The manuscript has been revised to more clearly articulate the relationship between biomimetic inspiration and the applied building-science methodology. Section 2.3 now explicitly defines the study’s use of an indirect biomimetic approach, while the methods and discussion are framed within established building-science and user-centric comfort principles.

Reviewer Comment 2: [Authors should primarily improve the research by engaging more deeply with biomimetics and building science.]

Author Reply: This comment has been addressed through targeted revisions to the literature review and discussion sections. The manuscript now provides a clearer theoretical grounding in biomimetic design principles, down-draft wind catcher operation, and adaptive thermal comfort theory.

Reviewer Comment 3: [Please use scientific descriptions and process them more thoroughly in the paper; i.e., the wind catchers referred to here are the down-draft type.]

Author Reply: The manuscript has been revised to consistently and explicitly refer to down-draft wind catchers.

Reviewer Comment 4: [The study reads like pilot research; there is little comparative parametric analysis, i.e., comparisons of these other types of filters with varying densities of natural systems. The authors note that many of the limitations are in the conclusions. need to be strengthened to make the article a journal paper. It is a work in progress. Several steps to the research design are as follows,

The first step is to set up an on-site weather station to monitor environmental conditions and to install temperature and humidity sensors inside the down-draft wind catcher, in the spaces served by the airflow. It is also important in a field study to examine the upwind and own-wind microclimates, as these affect performance. Plans and photographs of the building and its environment, along with occupant surveys, are important for understanding thermal Comfort and air quality satisfaction. Assess sand and dust storms against a severity index. Evaluate temperature and humidity measures against a psychrometric chart to evaluate Comfort.
The second step is to adapt the wind catcher and study several sand/dust storms. Observations of occupant behaviour and Comfort
The third step is a comparative analysis of the data from Steps 1 and 2.
The fourth step is valuation using CFB modelling test parametric variations, to optimise the filter and Comfort.]

Author Reply: The study is intentionally framed as an early-stage, field-based investigation focusing on architectural integration rather than parametric optimization. This has now been clarified more explicitly in the manuscript, and limitations related to the absence of comparative density variation and parametric testing are clearly acknowledged, with such analyses identified as future research directions. Also, Several of the suggested steps (e.g., long-term weather monitoring, occupant surveys, and CFD-based parametric optimization) extend beyond the scope of the present study and would require a substantially different experimental design. These elements are now explicitly acknowledged as valuable directions for future work, while the current manuscript has been revised to clearly define its scope and methodological boundaries.

Reviewer Comment 5: [Detailed comments.
Title: Reflect on the central question in the research, which explores the air quality and the effectiveness of filters to maintain natural comfort ventilation in rural Saudi Arabia]

Author Reply: The title has been revised to more accurately reflect the central research question by explicitly addressing air quality improvement and natural ventilation comfort, while maintaining the study’s core focus on the application of camel hair filters within wind catchers as a component of vernacular Saudi architecture.

Reviewer Comment 6: [Abstract:

Confirm evidence of (PM₁₀) capability of the filter is post-testing
Emphasis on a user-centric approach; the comfort index is vague. In this case, the Adaptive Model is relevant to a free-running building.]

Author Reply: The abstract has been revised to clarify that evidence of PM₁₀ filtration capability is based on previously published laboratory testing, while the present study assesses particulate interception qualitatively in an architectural field context.

Reviewer Comment 7: [Introduction

Please consider changing Figure 1, as it seems out of place on line 94.
Add a section on the environmental conditions for the study line 140.]

Author Reply: A new subsection describing the environmental and climatic context of the study area has been added around line 140. This section outlines the relevant hot–arid climatic conditions, dust prevalence, and wind characteristics influencing natural ventilation in rural Saudi Arabia. Figure 1 has been relocated and is now cited within this subsection, where it directly supports the environmental context of the study.

Reviewer Comment 8: [Literature review

Deeper analysis of the operation of down draft wind catchers, see a Special Edition in Architectural Science Review which deals with innovation in this area.']

Author Reply: We have expanded the literature review to include deeper analysis of the operation of down draft and other wind catcher systems by incorporating studies published in Architectural Science Review. Specifically, we now discuss the work of Foruzanmehr (2012) on vernacular system behavior and Calautit et al. (2012) on numerical evaluation of passive ventilation configurations, which provide further theoretical grounding for the airflow mechanisms relevant to our study.

Reviewer Comment 9: [2.3 Explain more about the biomimetic approach, using either a direct or indirect approach.]

Author Reply: Section 2.3 has been revised to include a concise explanation of biomimetic approaches in architecture, clearly distinguishing between direct and indirect strategies. The manuscript now explicitly positions the study within an indirect biomimetic framework.

Reviewer Comment 10: [Add a section on air quality guidelines and standards.]

Author Reply: a new subsection titled “2.4 Air Quality Guidelines and Standards” has been added to the literature review to provide appropriate contextual benchmarks for particulate matter exposure relevant to the study.

Reviewer Comment 11: [Line 322 adapts conclusions into research questions.]

Author Reply: In addition, the conclusion-oriented paragraph at the end of the literature review has been removed, ensuring that the literature review frames the research gaps without implying prior conclusions.

Reviewer Comment 12: [Material and Methods.

Align questions to methods.]

Author Reply: Section 1.1 has been fully revised to clarify the research aims and objectives and to explicitly align them with the applied experimental methods. The research questions are now embedded within the narrative flow of the section and directly correspond to the measured airflow, thermal, and qualitative air quality parameters investigated in the study.

Reviewer Comment 13: [Included diagrams of the location of the instruments]

Author Reply: Figures 7 and 10 were added, as these diagrams illustrating the case study villa have been added, including plan and section drawings that clearly indicate the locations of the measuring instruments and monitoring stations.

Reviewer Comment 14: [Expanded the discussion of ASHRAE comfort criteria based on the Adaptive model. 2.0 m/s is desirable for comfort ventilation; add references.]

Author Reply: The discussion has been expanded to clarify the role of air movement within the ASHRAE adaptive comfort framework. It’s now explained how elevated air speeds, as recognized in ASHRAE Standard 55 and related adaptive comfort literature, can contribute to perceived comfort in naturally ventilated buildings under hot conditions.

Reviewer Comment 15: [Expand and clarify the explanation of Table 10. Claims made should be justifiable]

Author Reply: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and clarified the interpretation of the relevant results to ensure that all claims are fully supported by the presented data and remain within the scope of the study.

Reviewer Comment 16: [Architectural integration

Consider a less directional, more balanced summation.]

Author Reply: The concluding discussion of the Architectural Integration section has been revised to adopt a more balanced and critical tone. In particular, the first and second paragraphs now explicitly acknowledge both the potential benefits and the practical constraints of integrating camel hair filtration within downdraft wind catcher systems, avoiding a directional or advocacy-oriented summary.

Reviewer Comment 17: [Discuss the options for validation and triangulation.]

Author Reply: The issue of validation and triangulation has been addressed in the third paragraph of the Architectural Integration section no. 5.

Reviewer Comment 18: [ Discuss sources of materials and circularity, ie, can camel hide be sourced at an industrial scale?]

Author Reply: The fourth paragraph of the Architectural Integration section now discusses the sourcing of camel hair and hide as livestock byproducts, the potential for scalability, and the logistical and standardization challenges.

Reviewer Comment 19: [ Include comfort and energy issues; i.e., look at holistic integration.]

Author Reply: Considerations of thermal comfort and energy implications have been incorporated into the final paragraph of the Architectural Integration section, where filtration performance is now discussed within a broader, holistic framework that includes adaptive comfort strategies and passive energy use in naturally ventilated buildings.

Reviewer Comment 20: [Conclusions

See previous comments]

Author Reply: The Conclusions section has been revised in line with the reviewer’s previous comments, with strengthened alignment to the study’s scope

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are my comments:

I think the claim that camel hair provides (minor but consistent cooling (up to 1.8°C)) needs stronger thermodynamic justification. Was this cooling due to evaporation, thermal mass, or insulation, or what? The manuscript at this version framed it vaguely to “desorption cooling” and “low conductivity”
I can’t understand why the study only evaluated PM₁₀ capture qualitatively!!!
It is not clear to me how you with a single 24 h dust event is for generalizing performance?
I think the idea is overclaimed without long term durability experiment or study. Camel hair is organic so to me the question is what happens after months of UV exposure, thermal cycling, or microbial groth?
why you didnot compare it with other ntural source material for the same purpose?
It is not clear to me how the claimed 38.4% airflow reduction aligns with occupant comfort without linking and analysing ventilation rates to CO₂ levels or similar indications.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer-2 Comments

Summary

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: [I think the claim that camel hair provides (minor but consistent cooling (up to 1.8°C)) needs stronger thermodynamic justification. Was this cooling due to evaporation, thermal mass, or insulation, or what? The manuscript at this version framed it vaguely to “desorption cooling” and “low conductivity”

Author Reply: section 4.2 has been revised to clarify the interpretation of the reported temperature reduction. The cooling effect is now described as an observed association rather than attributed to a single thermodynamic mechanism. While evaporative effects may contribute under certain conditions, the study did not directly measure evaporation or latent heat exchange. Accordingly, the discussion now acknowledges that the measured temperature difference may result from a combination of airflow modulation, thermal buffering, and radiative effects, and avoids attributing the cooling solely to evaporation.

Comment 2: [I can’t understand why the study only evaluated PM₁₀ capture qualitatively!!!]

Author Reply: the last paragraph of section 3.3 has been revised to clarify the rationale for the qualitative assessment of PM₁₀ capture. Quantitative PM₁₀ filtration performance of camel hair–based media has already been established in the authors’ previously published laboratory study under controlled conditions. In the present work, the focus shifts to architectural integration and system behavior within a down-draft wind catcher under natural ventilation.

Comment 3: [It is not clear to me how you with a single 24 h dust event is for generalizing performance?]

Author Reply: We agree that a single 24-hour dust event cannot be used to generalize filtration performance across all environmental conditions. Section 1.1 has been revised to clarify that the analyzed dust event is presented as a representative observational case, intended to examine system behavior and architectural integration under real exposure rather than to establish generalized performance metrics. The findings are therefore interpreted as indicative and complementary to the authors’ previously published laboratory-based filtration results, rather than as a standalone basis for broad generalization.

Comment 4: [I think the idea is overclaimed without long term durability experiment or study. Camel hair is organic so to me the question is what happens after months of UV exposure, thermal cycling, or microbial groth?]

Author Reply: We agree that long-term durability is a critical consideration for organic filtration materials such as camel hair. The present study does not claim to evaluate durability under prolonged ultraviolet exposure, thermal cycling, or microbial growth. These aspects fall beyond the scope of the current investigation and have now been explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript as key directions for future work.

Comment 5: [why you didnot compare it with other ntural source material for the same purpose?]

Author Reply: The present study was not designed as a comparative screening of multiple natural filtration materials, but rather as a focused investigation into the architectural integration of camel hair filtration within a down-draft wind catcher system. Camel hair was selected due to its local availability, relevance to the Saudi context, and the existence of previously published quantitative material-level performance data by the authors.

Comment 6: [It is not clear to me how the claimed 38.4% airflow reduction aligns with occupant comfort without linking and analysing ventilation rates to CO₂ levels or similar indications.]

Author Reply: We agree that linking airflow reduction to ventilation adequacy would require indoor air quality indicators such as CO₂ concentration. The present study does not claim to assess ventilation sufficiency or indoor air quality compliance, and this has now been clarified in the last paragraph of section 4.2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The core claim is novel integration of camel hair filter into a wind catcher, but the manuscript does not clearly differentiate this from prior wind-catcher dust-mitigation work (screens, wet pads, dust traps) nor from natural-fiber filtration studies, in terms of measurable performance and generalizable design rules.

The central outcome of dust mitigation is not quantitatively measured. Filtration performance is assessed mainly by visual inspection and qualitative statements, with no PM10/PM2.5 time series, mass gain weighing, penetration factor, or removal efficiency, so high filtration efficiency is not scientifically supported.

The study lacks a parallel unfiltered wind catcher run (same day) or a matched reference to isolate the filter’s effect; therefore, reductions in indoor dust and changes in velocity/temperature cannot be attributed uniquely to the camel-hair panel.

Airflow characterization is too coarse and risks over-interpretation. Velocities are reported at only 6 time stamps over 24 h (Table 1), not as continuous logged data. Also mean reduction is sensitive to sampling choice and does not capture gustiness, directionality, or pressure-drop behavior.

The manuscript claims post-filter velocities within ASHRAE-recommended 0.5–1.0 m/s, but comfort depends on operative temperature, clothing, turbulence intensity, and occupant control, and citing a single speed band can be misleading without the full comfort model context.

The cooling and RH changes are attributed to insulation and evaporative cooling, yet there is no heat and moisture balance, no measurement of filter surface temperature, moisture content, or solar exposure. Alternative explanations (sensor placement, shading, mixing) are not excluded.

Filter material characterization is insufficient for reproducibility and safety. The fabrication uses chlorine and additives and then steam treatment, but key properties are not measured neither reported (fiber areal density, porosity, pressure drop curve vs face velocity, thickness uniformity, microbial risk, VOC/odor concerns). This limits scientific reproducibility and practical deployability.

The test design is underpowered (single house, single event, single configuration). The experiment is limited to one 24-hour dust event and one 1×1 m panel installed in one wind catcher orientation. Strong claims about replicable strategy and broad viability are premature without repeated events, seasonal variation, and different wind-catcher typologies.

Table 3 assigns “MERV 6 equivalent” without any standardized test method (ASHRAE 52.2/ISO 16890) or particle counting. This should be removed or replaced by measured efficiency metrics. (This is a major credibility issue because it translates qualitative observations into a standardized rating without data.)

Reference and presentation quality needs tightening to meet journal standards. There are duplicated authors in refs (e.g., [1], [3], [4] show repeated names), some references appear incomplete (“Assessing the Thermal Performance of Bedouin Tents…” without full bibliographic data), and figure captions/claims (“check figure 2”) are informal. These weaken scholarly rigor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs proofreading

Author Response

Response to Reviewer-3 Comments

Summary

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: [The core claim is novel integration of camel hair filter into a wind catcher, but the manuscript does not clearly differentiate this from prior wind-catcher dust-mitigation work (screens, wet pads, dust traps) nor from natural-fiber filtration studies, in terms of measurable performance and generalizable design rules.]

Author Reply: section 1.1 has been revised to more clearly distinguish the proposed approach from previous wind-catcher dust-mitigation methods and also from the author’s previous laboratory-based camel hair filtration studies. The revision clarifies that the contribution of this work lies in the architectural integration of a dry natural-fiber filter within a down-draft wind catcher, focusing on system-level airflow behavior rather than isolated material performance.

Comment 2: [The central outcome of dust mitigation is not quantitatively measured. Filtration performance is assessed mainly by visual inspection and qualitative statements, with no PM10/PM2.5 time series, mass gain weighing, penetration factor, or removal efficiency, so high filtration efficiency is not scientifically supported.]

Author Reply: We agree that the present study does not provide quantitative PM₁₀ filtration metrics. Section 3.3 has been revised to clarify that PM₁₀ capture is assessed qualitatively and that no claims of quantified filtration efficiency are made. This section now explicitly positions this work as a continuation of the authors’ previously published laboratory-based research, where quantitative filtration performance of camel hair–based media was established, while the current study focuses on in-site architectural integration under natural ventilation.

Comment 3: [The study lacks a parallel unfiltered wind catcher run (same day) or a matched reference to isolate the filter’s effect; therefore, reductions in indoor dust and changes in velocity/temperature cannot be attributed uniquely to the camel-hair panel.]

Author Reply: We totally agree with the reviewer that isolating the causal effects of the filter would require parallel filtered and unfiltered wind catcher configurations operating under identical conditions. However, this was beyond the scope of the present study with the current vernacular building stock that is rarely utilizes two identical wind catchers and has now been explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript as an important direction for future work.

Comment 4: [Airflow characterization is too coarse and risks over-interpretation. Velocities are reported at only 6 time stamps over 24 h (Table 1), not as continuous logged data. Also mean reduction is sensitive to sampling choice and does not capture gustiness, directionality, or pressure-drop behavior.]

Author Reply: The need for continuous logging and higher-resolution airflow and pressure measurements has been explicitly acknowledged in the limitations and future work discussion and will be done in the following research by integrating IOT sensors to make sure of continues data logging.

Comment 5: [The manuscript claims post-filter velocities within ASHRAE-recommended 0.5–1.0 m/s, but comfort depends on operative temperature, clothing, turbulence intensity, and occupant control, and citing a single speed band can be misleading without the full comfort model context.]

Author Reply: Section 4.1 has been revised to remove any implication that comfort is determined by a single air speed range or that ASHRAE compliance is claimed. Air velocity is now discussed within the broader context of adaptive comfort strategies in naturally ventilated buildings, without reliance on a simplified speed threshold by stating the following “ASHRAE Standard 55 acknowledges that elevated air speeds, exceeding 1.0 m/s and reaching up to approximately 2.0 m/s, may be perceived as desirable under hot conditions, provided that occupants have adaptive opportunities such as operable openings or behavioral control [32].”

Comment 6: [The cooling and RH changes are attributed to insulation and evaporative cooling, yet there is no heat and moisture balance, no measurement of filter surface temperature, moisture content, or solar exposure. Alternative explanations (sensor placement, shading, mixing) are not excluded.]

Author Reply: Section 4.2 has been revised to remove mechanistic attribution of cooling or humidity changes to insulation or evaporative effects. The reported temperature and RH variations are now presented as observational outcomes rather than as evidence of a specific heat or moisture transfer mechanism. The study did not include active wetting, shading devices, or heat and moisture balance measurements, and this is now clarified in the text. Also, Sensor locations are explicitly documented in the sectional drawings (Figure 10) to address placement concerns.

Comment 7: [Filter material characterization is insufficient for reproducibility and safety. The fabrication uses chlorine and additives and then steam treatment, but key properties are not measured neither reported (fiber areal density, porosity, pressure drop curve vs face velocity, thickness uniformity, microbial risk, VOC/odor concerns). This limits scientific reproducibility and practical deployability.]

Author Reply: The present manuscript does not aim to provide full material-scale characterization or manufacturing specifications, as these aspects were addressed in the authors’ previously published laboratory-based study on camel hair filtration media. In this paper, fabrication details are included for contextual transparency related to architectural integration rather than for material reproducibility. The manuscript has been revised in section 3.1 to clarify this distinction and to acknowledge that additional characterization related to standardization, hygiene, and long-term safety would be required for broader deployment and represents an important direction for future work.

Comment 8: Filter material characterization is insufficient for reproducibility and safety. The fabrication uses chlorine and additives and then steam treatment, but key properties are not measured neither reported (fiber areal density, porosity, pressure drop curve vs face velocity, thickness uniformity, microbial risk, VOC/odor concerns). This limits scientific reproducibility and practical deployability.]

Author Reply: We agree that the experimental design is limited in scale and does not support broad generalization. The manuscript (Section 1.1) has been revised to clarify that the study is case-based and exploratory, focusing on a single building, configuration, and dust event to examine architectural integration rather than replicable or typology-wide performance. Claims of broad applicability have been avoided, and the need for repeated events, seasonal variation, and alternative wind catcher configurations is explicitly acknowledged as future work.

Comment 9: [Table 3 assigns “MERV 6 equivalent” without any standardized test method (ASHRAE 52.2/ISO 16890) or particle counting. This should be removed or replaced by measured efficiency metrics. (This is a major credibility issue because it translates qualitative observations into a standardized rating without data.)]

Author Reply: The qualitative dust interception observations reported in Table 3 are not intended to represent standardized filtration ratings (e.g., MERV or ISO classifications), as no particle counting or standardized test protocols were applied in this field study.

Comment 10: [Reference and presentation quality needs tightening to meet journal standards. There are duplicated authors in refs (e.g., [1], [3], [4] show repeated names), some references appear incomplete (“Assessing the Thermal Performance of Bedouin Tents…” without full bibliographic data), and figure captions/claims (“check figure 2”) are informal. These weaken scholarly rigor.]

Author Reply: The reference list and figure captions have been carefully reviewed and revised to meet journal standards. Duplicated author entries and repeated references have been corrected or removed, incomplete bibliographic records have been completed or deleted where necessary, and informal or placeholder text in figure captions has been eliminated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Add 'down draft' to windcatchers.
L140-153 Expand to explain how down draft wind catchers work, i.e., how they draw air flow from the boundary layer, and to provide ventilation. Also include a paragraph on the methodology and the comparison to air quality standards. Please outline the structure of the paper.
L201. Add a paragraph summarising the objective and itemize the research questions.
L396. Please summarise the literature review in a single paragraph, presenting it as a cohesive argument for the research.
L468. Table 10. If you have data on the interior space, it would be useful to include it, which would add depth to the thermal comfort study. If not, add to further research.
Please ensure the reference section meets MDPI guidelines.

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable

Author Response

Reviewer Comment 1: [Add 'down draft' to windcatchers.]

Author Reply: all “wind catchers” words that describe our case study downdraft wind catcher was replaced by “Down draft wind catcher” in the whole manuscript

Reviewer Comment 2: [L140-153 Expand to explain how down draft wind catchers work, i.e., how they draw air flow from the boundary layer, and to provide ventilation. Also include a paragraph on the methodology and the comparison to air quality standards. Please outline the structure of the paper.]

Author Reply: New paragraphs we add to lines 157-172 clarify the physical operation of traditional down-draft wind catchers, including airflow capture from the boundary layer and pressure-driven ventilation mechanisms.

Reviewer Comment 3: [L201. Add a paragraph summarising the objective and itemize the research questions.]

Author Reply: A new paragraph (Lines 219-237) has been added to the Introduction summarizing the study objective, followed by a set of clearly articulated research questions.

Reviewer Comment 4: [L396. Please summarise the literature review in a single paragraph, presenting it as a cohesive argument for the research.]

Author Reply: A single-paragraph synthesis has been added at the end of the literature review (lines 433-446) to present the reviewed studies as a cohesive argument.

Reviewer Comment 5: [L468. Table 10. If you have data on the interior space, it would be useful to include it, which would add depth to the thermal comfort study. If not, add to further research.]

Author Reply: As requested, an extension has been added to the first paragraph of the Limitations and Future Work section to clarify that future research could incorporate more extensive and continuous interior environmental monitoring.

Reviewer Comment 5: [Please ensure the reference section meets MDPI guidelines.]

Author Reply: The reference list has been thoroughly reviewed and revised in accordance with MDPI guidelines. Duplicate and repeated author entries have been corrected, incomplete references have been completed or clarified, and formatting artifacts resulting from automated exports have been removed. Web-based sources, theses, standards, and conference proceedings have been reformatted to meet MDPI reference requirements, ensuring consistency and completeness throughout the reference section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comment. The manuscript can be accepte in this format.The limitations has been updated and comments have been addressed well.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment : [No more comment. The manuscript can be accepte in this format.The limitations has been updated, and comments have been addressed well.]

Author Reply: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of the revised manuscript and for confirming that the comments have been addressed satisfactorily. We appreciate the constructive feedback provided during the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Althought the authors made some improvements, the paper is still not publishable in a high-level scientific journal like Energies.

Many of my observations were just addressed in limitations and the study still lacks reproducibility and scientific rigor.

E.g., the authors answer "In this paper, fabrication details are included for contextual transparency related to architectural integration rather than for material reproducibility.", but it is not clearly understandable how architectural integrations is assessed. A scientific assessment requires the definition of measurable performance indicators and their evaluation with experiments that lead to quantitative results.

Also, the method is not fully consistent with scientific research and many results remain qualitative.

E.g.: the authors answered: "The qualitative dust interception observations reported in Table 3 are not intended to represent standardized filtration ratings (e.g., MERV or ISO classifications), as no particle counting or standardized test protocols were applied in this field study." but the method used to obtain those "qualitative" results in not strong. Furthermore, the usefulness of these quantitative results should be better highlighted.

The authors could focus at least on summarizing the quantitative results of the study and streamlining the method that led to those results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs proofreading

Author Response

Comment 1: [Althought the authors made some improvements, the paper is still not publishable in a high-level scientific journal like Energies.

Many of my observations were just addressed in limitations and the study still lacks reproducibility and scientific rigor.

Author Reply: We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the revised manuscript and for sharing these concerns. The present study is intentionally framed as an exploratory, architectural case study rather than an engineering performance or optimization investigation. Quantitative filtration performance and material properties were addressed in the authors’ previously published laboratory work, which is referenced accordingly.

The focus of the current paper is on architectural integration and system-level environmental response under real operating conditions. Within this context, architectural integration is assessed through documented design logic, observed airflow behavior, adaptive comfort–based interpretation, and qualitative in situ particulate interaction. These methods are commonly employed in architectural and built-environment research where controlled experimental reproducibility is neither feasible nor the primary objective.

To avoid overinterpretation, the manuscript has been further refined to clarify its scope, methodological boundaries, and non-generalizable nature, while maintaining consistency with the interdisciplinary focus of the journal.

Comment 2: [Also, the method is not fully consistent with scientific research and many results remain qualitative.

Author Reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the qualitative nature of several results. The qualitative observations reported in the manuscript are intentionally positioned as contextual and corroborative, supporting system-level understanding rather than replacing quantitative performance assessment.

Qualitative particulate interception was documented through visual inspection and photographic recording during naturally occurring dust events, with explicit avoidance of numerical extrapolation or standardized filtration claims. The value of these findings lies in demonstrating how the filtration layer interacts with dust-laden airflow in situ and in informing architectural feasibility and integration considerations.

The manuscript has been further clarified to better emphasize the intended role and limitations of these qualitative results, while directing readers to prior laboratory studies for quantitative performance evaluation.

Comment 3: [The authors could focus at least on summarizing the quantitative results of the study and streamlining the method that led to those results.]

Author Reply: To address this point, the manuscript has been revised to explicitly summarize the quantitative outcomes derived from the present field study and to clarify the methodological pathway leading to those results. A short introductory paragraph has been added to the Results section to distinguish between system-level quantitative environmental indicators reported in this paper and qualitative observations used for contextual interpretation. This clarification reinforces the exploratory, architectural scope of the study while improving transparency and readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors