Investigating the Emission of Hazardous Chemical Substances from Mashrabiya Used for Indoor Air Quality in Hot Desert Climate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

It is a great pleasure to peer review an interesting manuscript. Through the review process I’ve identified the following strengths and weakness.

The manuscript’s strengths:

• The subject of the manuscript is interesting not only for the scientific community but also for constructions developers and manufacturing industry
• The Introduction section provides a detailed presentation of the subject and what aimed the authors to conduct the research
• The methodology used is well and adequately described– an important aspect for the research community (other researchers could very easy follow and adopt the methodology steps);
• All figures properly show data and are easy to interpret and understand; authors interpreted appropriately and consistently the data throughout the manuscript
• The results are clearly presented and interpreted appropriately;
• The conclusion drawn are supported by results.
• The Reference section is consistent and include current cited references

The manuscript’s weakness:

• Authors should highlight what is their contribution to the scientific literature / what is new in the research paper
• The Paragraphs from line 85 to 128 should be moved to the Introduction section
• Authors should present the whole name (material or agency) before abbreviation, see line 67, 136 and so on.
• Authors should present the technical specifications of the apparatus used in measurements (range/ accuracy) where is suited.

Author Response

Dear respectful reviewer,

We really appreciate for your constructive review.

Now we are done with revision and upload the PDF version for you.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear. Authors,

This manuscript is about Emission of Hazardous Chemical Substances from the Mashrabiya for Indoor Air Quality in Hot Desert Climate.

 

It is an interesting topic for indoor air quality.

 

However, I would like to recommend some points to amend.

 

1. Please use more common terms.

• CH₂O is an uncommon term.
• Please use HCHO rather than CH₂O

2. Please check the instruction for authors,

• line90-125 - citation rule

 

3. The purpose was written twice in the introduction and method. Please write in the introduction.

 

4. Please insert related table, figure, and manuscript in terms of the research purpose. It means that consistency is required in manuscript. For example, you did explain IB in the method.  But in your research, you used LLT. So, I would like to recommend discussing the table1 in the discussion part. 

 

5. Please avoid reviving abbreviations. For example, Table 2, there are F/F/(Finishing Foil). Please define at the first abbreviation once.

 

6. Why do you select test retention period as 14, 8, 3 days?

 

 7. Please make space between number and unit. (line 233)

 

8. It is necessary to write countries of manufacturer. (line 233-250)

 

9. You mentioned used the TENAX for the experiment, but Figure 4. showed the detector tube. Also, it is necessary to explain more detailed adsorption method.

 

10. Please re-draw the Figures using professional software.

 

11. Discussion is not enough to compare to the other part. Current discussion is not appropriate. Please discuss your result.(Current: 5 pages of Method, 5 pages of Reults, 1 page of discussion)

 

12. Too many references were cited.

 

13. Conclusion is too long. Please confirm your research purpose and describe achieve or not. If not, please describe why in the discussion and conlusion.

 

Author Response

Dear respectful reviewer,

We really appreciate for your constructive review.

Now we are done with revision and upload the PDF version for you.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf