Downwind Fire and Smoke Detection during a Controlled Burn—Analyzing the Feasibility and Robustness of Several Downwind Wildfire Sensing Modalities through Real World Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study tests the capabilities of various local sensor systems (optical, infrared, and chemical) to detect and monitor a controlled burn. An overview of various local sensor types is provided and used for discussion of the multisensory packages created by the researchers. Nearly all sensing modalities in their multisensory packages were able to detect and monitor the fire but they possessed varying degrees of sensitivity. These preliminary results are promising, and future research designed to improve upon the study is discussed. I think this study is important, original, well-designed, and worthy of publication. However, there are a few minor edits which I believe need to be made prior to publication. These include minor changes to wording, rearrangement of some figures, and some edits to the discussion (add citations, expand upon future research suggestions).

Introduction

Line 88: No need for “Briefly”.

122: I think “candlelight clicker” was meant to be “candlelight flicker”.

183: No need for “see for instance:”

193: No need for “For two examples, see:”

Materials and Methods

346-347: “Local data storage with every sample being timestamped” should be its own bullet point.

382: No need for “broken out and”.

439: Figure 5 is mentioned before figure 4. The numbers should be swapped. Also, figure 5 needs to be moved to the methods section. It is currently in results.

441-442: The sentence starting with “Each unit…” is unclear to me. Were the battery packs on a second poll or attached to the sensor package? Figure 5 shows a second poll, but this should be clear in the text as well.

479: Figure 4 should be moved into the methods section. It is currently in results.

Results

538: Table 2 looks like a screenshot of a table, with some numbers partially cut off. This should be addressed.

556-558: This sentence is better suited for the discussion, not results.

670: What does “ones” refer to?

Note: Several figures appear in sections after the section they were referenced in. These figures should be rearranged so they are placed in the appropriate sections.

776: “Observed” should not be capitalized.

Discussion:

Note: There are no citations in the discussion. I suggest comparing your results to similar research and providing sources for some of the claims made during the discussion (for example: “An affordable and effective fire detection system balances two fundamental questions: (1) how much sensing diversity is needed to detect a wildfire event and (2) what other services can this system provide besides fire detection?”).

Note: I suggest adding a future research section to the discussion where you can outline the future research suggestions made throughout the paper. For example, the future research suggestion made in lines 556-558. You may consider moving the second paragraph of your conclusion to this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors developed and tested a multi-sensor in situ wildfire detection instrument. The authors tested the sensor on prescribed burns with varying sensor success, depending on distance from the fire event. Overall, the paper was well written and should be published with minor revisions.

This results describe only the early development of a sensing system, however, this knowledge is still important to the community to improve fire monitoring. The authors did an excellent job describing why they incorporated the sensors they used in their study; they provided good arguments for why a multi-instrument system is necessary. I was in agreement with their anticipated future work. Given the many recent deadly wildfires, the authors work contributes to developing technology which can eventually save lives.

I have no specific feedback for the writing, it was well written and organized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work, authors evaluated the potential of a multitude of different sensing modalities for integration into a distributed downwind fire detection system. This work is interesting.

Has the author considered the impact of sensor noise on detection results?

Can the author consider introducing relevant algorithms for multi information fusion to improve detection accuracy?

English language fine. No issues detected

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf