Polyisocyanurate Foam Pyrolysis and Flame Spread Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a very interesting research topic regarding the flammability of polyisocyanurate foam. Many research methods were used for modeling (thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry, and microscale combustion calorimetry). I think that is written in a language professional, I did not notice the error, analysis of the results is presented in a clear way.
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for a positive assessment of the manuscript. We performed minor revisions of the language of the manuscript. The revised portions of the manuscript have been highlighted in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no specific comment or suggestion for the authors
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for a positive assessment of the manuscript. We performed minor revisions of the language of the manuscript. The revised portions of the manuscript have been highlighted in red.
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, this is a scientific article, the results of which can be used in practice. The authors have high scientific qualifications. However, I have some comments that need to be taken into account.
1.In lines 45, 59, 80, 81, the authors show several references at the same time. It must be corrected. It is necessary to specify the contribution of individual authors of these publications. It is advisable to indicate the names of these authors, and then put a link to the article in the list of references. If the authors consider that it is difficult, it is possible to remove some of these links to articles.
2.At the moment, the authors list all the methods used in separate subsections. At the beginning of the Materials and Methods section, the need to apply this developed methodology and individual methods should be emphasized.
3.Does it follow from the applied methodology that experiments are possible only on unique equipment? If so, then it is desirable to emphasize this in the text of the article.
4.So far, only one numerical value is presented in the conclusions of the article. The numerical values that have become new in this scientific study should be shown.
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for a positive assessment of the manuscript. We performed minor revisions to address this reviewer’s concerns and edited the language of the manuscript. All revised portions of the manuscript have been highlighted in red. Here is a response to specific comments:
Comment #1. In my opinion, this is a scientific article, the results of which can be used in practice. The authors have high scientific qualifications. However, I have some comments that need to be taken into account. In lines 45, 59, 80, 81, the authors show several references at the same time. It must be corrected. It is necessary to specify the contribution of individual authors of these publications. It is advisable to indicate the names of these authors, and then put a link to the article in the list of references. If the authors consider that it is difficult, it is possible to remove some of these links to articles.
Response: The key references provided in the lines 45 and 59 are discussed individually in subsequent text. Multiple references mentioned in the lines 80 and 81 are there to provide support to the statement that the presented methodology was tested on a wide range of materials. Discussion of details of these works is irrelevant to the point being made in the manuscript. All references were formatted in accordance to the journal requirements.
Comment #2. At the moment, the authors list all the methods used in separate subsections. At the beginning of the Materials and Methods section, the need to apply this developed methodology and individual methods should be emphasized.
Response: The overview of the methodology used in this manuscript, including listing of all methods accompanied by a description of their purpose, is provided in the last two paragraphs on the Introduction section that immediately precedes the Materials and Method section. This portion of the manuscript has been highlighted for the reviewer’s benefit.
Comment #3. Does it follow from the applied methodology that experiments are possible only on unique equipment? If so, then it is desirable to emphasize this in the text of the article.
Response: The applied methodology required experimental data from unique setup such as CAPA II. However, the same methodology can be applied to a standard experimental device, such as Fire Propagation Apparatus (FPA), as a potential replacement to CAPA II. A sentence was added to the conclusions to make this aspect clear to the reader.
Comment #4. So far, only one numerical value is presented in the conclusions of the article. The numerical values that have become new in this scientific study should be shown.
Response: A lot of physical quantities have been measured in this study. These quantities are summarized in the Tables 1 through 4. There are too many of them to list them in the text of the conclusions. However, we did add a reference to these tables in the revised conclusions for the benefit of the reader.
