Numerical Fluid Dynamics Simulation for Drones’ Chemical Detection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. CBRNe should be defined.
2. Some insight should be provided on how ground effect could negatively effect the readings from sensors placed on the ducting of the propellers. 
3. "hoover" should be replaced by "hover" throughout the article. 
4. The reference drone mentioned in the article does not have ducting on the propellers but the drone used for the COMSOL simulations does, this should be addressed. Clarifying why the ducting was added would be good. Including some comments about the aerodynamic effect of adding ducting would also be helpful.
5. Changes to the writing is necessary in some areas
   • As an example, Page 1 line 43 - Page 2 line 48 could be revised to be more clear. "One of the most important phases is “Situational Awareness”: understanding what’s going on, in which location, by who or what, for how long, what are the causes, what could be the consequences in time, what should be done to save people, decontaminate and solve the problem and, what is the best course of action to ensure a successful responding operation achieving the said objectives."
6. An overhead or isometric schematic of the simulation set up with the corresponding sensor readings mentioned for each set up could be interesting to show the reader which sensors are detecting higher concentrations of ammonia. In addition to the schematic, an explanation of factors that could be affecting the individual sensor readings would be beneficial.  

Author Response

Please see attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, Please, find attached file as my review of your manuscript! 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Probably, it could be useful to provide more explanation why ammonia was considered. What if pollution consists of different substances with different physical properties. 

Also, it is not very clear will simulation robust for different parameters like air humidity, smoke, or fog...

 

 

Author Response

Please see attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the vast majority of the necessary and proposed corrections, so the manuscript is already basically acceptable in this form.
Although the authors have made significant improvements to both of the essential points previously criticized, it is still my suggestion that at least the lower explosion threshold be indicated as a criterion for safe use in the justification for the use of ammonia.
Minor modifications to the reference list are still needed. The list needs to be clarified or supplemented in many places, possibly containing typographical errors, in particular references 7, 26, 34, 37, 49, 50, 51, 52.
Anyway, I like this article.

Author Response

Please see attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf