Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A interpolation method was proposed in the paper which was organized in a well format. The work was soundly illustrated by the author with a complete analysis.

To compare LRBF method with traditional IDW and OK method, you mentioned 12 ref. pts were selected, pls highlighted them to validate your results.

And it would be better to choose another scenario to show the advantage of the proposed method because it seemed that the three interpolation methods were comparable since the error were close.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper is a detailed statistical and interesting analysis of exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I recommend that section 3 to be completed with the methodology of measurement and data collection. What is the reason for choosing a frequency of 1800 kHz and a bandwidth of 400 kHz? I also recommend an analysis of the measurement system compared to other measurement systems from the perspective of accuracy of measurements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors propose an LRBF spatial interpolation method for construction of EMR-RF data collected along the roads in a city. In their method, a certain density of grid points is constructed in advance in the empty region of the study area, to obtain stable sample points there. Then, the grid points are separated into multiple layers from outside to inside. Finally, the LRBF spatial interpolation method is used to generate the EMR values of the grid points in layers. This can enable the LRBF basis function to ensure a certain shape in the local range and improve the LRBF interpolation  accuracy  to  construct  a  better  EMR-SF.  The  method  of  the  grid  point interval distance and the layered interval distance provided in this paper enables LRBF to obtain better continuity of the EMR-SF. I find this paper of interest for the scientific community and recommend it for publication in MDPI applied sciences after a minor revision. The authors should improve the "discussions" and "conclusions" sections such that it is easier to understand novelty of their approach and more exactly how their new results can be put in the practical use. These points could implicitly be understood from the existing text, but a few more explicit statements would improve the readability of the article.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf