Review of Fire Tests on Seats for Passenger Coaches and the Materials Used in Them

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author presents a valuable contribution regarding fire tests on seats for passenger coaches and materials used. The review presents an interesting read and is well put; however, it could be improved.

As a suggestion, considering that the paper is a review paper, it could be improved to provide an overview of the materials used in seats for passenger coaches from the time period, which could also explain the dynamism in the changes and more stringent fire testing standards for such materials.

Regardless, the first comment relates to the abstract.

In the first sentence... 'It shows'... I think it is not appropriate to begin the sentence in the abstract as such. The first sentence should be modified... The paper or review... shows, etc

Please format the decimal representation in the paper. ',' should be replaced with '.'

Figures should be slightly formatted. If possible, use dashes in some cases rather than straight lines to make the results more readable, especially when the shades are similar. It is difficult to follow representations in black prints. 

Figure 15 text font is difficult to read. I believe the journal requested a font size of at least 9 points for figure text. Keep in mind the same format as other charts presented.

Table 5: Is it Mahre or MARHE?

page 16/21, line 307: "Only materials with a maximum height of 50 mm can be used in the cone calorimeter." What does this imply? Are you referring to the test distance or thickness of the specimen? Please be specific.

page 19/21, line 364: "techniques 24? I believe 24 is a citation. Please confirm and correct or describe this technique 24.

Conclusion:

Same statement as in Abstract. Please adjust the beginning sentence.

Also, it would be nice to draw a final overall conclusion from the review aside from the suggestion to use simulation techniques. This will help create clarity for what is the accepted approach for characterization of such components. Also, please remove citations from conclusion as a conclusion should be solely based on the paper and findings from the review.

Please check funding and correct as such. For instance, this statement "please add" should not be there.

Conflict of interest: since it is a single author, I believe 'author' suffices rather than 'authors'

 

Author Response

In the text below, unfortunately, the reviewer's comment and my answer are not differentiated by color. In the attached .pdf, her comment and my answer are differentiated by color.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind introductory words, the reviewing of this paper and your very valuable comments

The author presents a valuable contribution regarding fire tests on seats for passenger coaches and materials used. The review presents an interesting read and is well put; however, it could be improved.

As a suggestion, considering that the paper is a review paper, it could be improved to provide an overview of the materials used in seats for passenger coaches from the time period, which could also explain the dynamism in the changes and more stringent fire testing standards for such materials.

Regardless, the first comment relates to the abstract.

In the first sentence... 'It shows'... I think it is not appropriate to begin the sentence in the abstract as such. The first sentence should be modified... The paper or review... shows, etc

It is improved: This study shows how the fire regulations for railway seats used in international traffic have changed over the last 30 years.

Please format the decimal representation in the paper. ',' should be replaced with '.'

Thank you, it has been corrected in Table 1 and Table 5, originally taken over from CERTIFER, has been rewritten.

Figures should be slightly formatted. If possible, use dashes in some cases rather than straight lines to make the results more readable, especially when the shades are similar. It is difficult to follow representations in black prints.

Thank you very much, I hadn't even thought about black prints. I have graphically improved figures 8, 14 and 20 in this respect.

Figure 15 text font is difficult to read. I believe the journal requested a font size of at least 9 points for figure text. Keep in mind the same format as other charts presented.

Thank you, Figure 15 is an original graphic from the CERTIFER report. I have added the following sentence: Sequence of test centers same as in Table 5.

Table 5: Is it Mahre or MARHE?

Thank you, I was also aware of this issue. A very frequently used testing device in Europe incorrectly outputs the Mahre value written in this way, which was then used by CERTIFER. To improve this, I have rewritten Table 5 and cut out this part of Figure 15.

page 16/21, line 307: "Only materials with a maximum height of 50 mm can be used in the cone calorimeter." What does this imply? Are you referring to the test distance or thickness of the specimen? Please be specific

Thank you, I have improved it as follows (Line 369):

Only materials with a maximum thickness of 50 mm can be used in a cone calorimeter, which is why the foams with the fabric were also tested using this specimen thickness. However, this had no influence on the results of these tests.

page 19/21, line 364: "techniques 24? I believe 24 is a citation. Please confirm and correct or describe this technique 24.

I have inserted literature, so the number of the quotation, now in line 430, has changed.

Conclusion:

Same statement as in Abstract. Please adjust the beginning sentence.

Now this line (new line 435) reads as follows: This study shows how the fire test regulations for railway seats changed over time, …

Also, it would be nice to draw a final overall conclusion from the review aside from the suggestion to use simulation techniques. This will help create clarity for what is the accepted approach for characterization of such components. Also, please remove citations from conclusion as a conclusion should be solely based on the paper and findings from the review.

The conclusion has also been revised in this respect.

Please check funding and correct as such. For instance, this statement "please add" should not be there.

Thank you, it is improved.

Conflict of interest: since it is a single author, I believe 'author' suffices rather than 'authors'

Thank you, it is improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), your manuscript deals with an interesting topic, presents well with argued data, therefore for me it may have a chance to be published after the clarification of the followings:

 

1.      Organize your manuscript

2.      Improve the language and quality of coherence

3.      Revise your manuscript for English language and check typos and grammatical errors

4.      Provide a separate paragraph for characterization techniques

5.      Rewrite abstract  and conclusion part

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved

Author Response

In the text below, unfortunately, the reviewer's comment and my answer are not differentiated by color. In the attached .pdf, her comment and my answer are differentiated by color.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing my paper.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s), your manuscript deals with an interesting topic, presents well with argued data, therefore for me it may have a chance to be published after the clarification of the followings:

 

1. Organize your manuscript

I have revised the paper, added two additional literature citations and clarified some of the content.

2. Improve the language and quality of coherence
   The paper has been professionally revised with regard to the English language.
3. Revise your manuscript for English language and check typos and grammatical errors
   As mentioned above, the paper has been revised in this respect.
4. Provide a separate paragraph for characterization techniques

In my opinion, a separate section on testing techniques would “tear up” the paper too much.

I have inserted the following at the beginning of chapter 2:

General preliminary remark: Prior to all tests, the test samples were conditioned for at least 3 days at 23 °C and 50 % relative humidity and the tests were carried out in accordance with the stated standards.

In the paper I did not mention this:

Before the test, all test samples were conditioned accordingly and the tests were carried out in accordance with the standards because we are an accredited test center. The tests described in chapter 6 were not carried out for an external client and the deviations from the standard-compliant test are listed. 

5. Rewrite abstract  and conclusion part

Abstract and conclusion have been revised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved

As mentioned above, the paper has been professionally revised with regard to the English language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Section 2.2 mentions that the additives cause differences in heat release and smoke generation between the two foams, but lacks a detailed explanation of the types, functions, and mechanisms of these additives.

2.      The article mentions that the flame retardant used in natural leather deteriorates over time, leading to an increase in heat release, but this discussion is somewhat brief. There is a lack of detailed analysis on the degradation mechanism of the flame retardant. Relevant literature could be added to explain whether this degradation is caused by environmental factors, temperature changes, etc., and how it impacts the long-term performance of the material. Further exploration of the stability of the flame retardant and potential alternatives would enhance the depth of the article.

3.      Please provide further details on the testing conditions.

4.      The conclusion section could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings of the paper, such as the impact of the evolution of fire testing standards on the selection of materials for railway seats and the differences in fire performance of various materials under flame exposure. Additionally, with respect to the application of simulation techniques, future research directions could be proposed, such as optimizing railway seat material design based on simulations, or further exploring the application of new flame retardant materials.

Based on these points, my recommendation for the manuscript is a minor revision.

Author Response

In the text below, unfortunately, the reviewer's comment and my answer are not differentiated by color. In the attached .pdf, her comment and my answer are differentiated by color.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, which have helped me to carry out another literature search and find two papers that fit my context.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Section 2.2 mentions that the additives cause differences in heat release and smoke generation between the two foams, but lacks a detailed explanation of the types, functions, and mechanisms of these additives.

 

It was not possible to obtain information about the additives because they are an essential know-how of the foam manufacturer. A reference to a recently published paper has been added here.

 

2. The article mentions that the flame retardant used in natural leather deteriorates over time, leading to an increase in heat release, but this discussion is somewhat brief. There is a lack of detailed analysis on the degradation mechanism of the flame retardant. Relevant literature could be added to explain whether this degradation is caused by environmental factors, temperature changes, etc., and how it impacts the long-term performance of the material. Further exploration of the stability of the flame retardant and potential alternatives would enhance the depth of the article.
   
   

Thank you for your reference, I also found a paper here that deals with this topic.

3. Please provide further details on the testing conditions.

I have inserted the following at the beginning of chapter 2:

General preliminary remark: Prior to all tests, the test samples were conditioned for at least 3 days at 23 °C and 50 % relative humidity and the tests were carried out in accordance with the stated standards.

In the paper I did not mention this:
We are an accredited testing laboratory for fire tests and carry out all tests in accordance with the standards after conditioning the test samples. With the exception of the tests described in chapter 6, all tests were carried out for an external client who has given us permission to publish the results.

4. The conclusion section could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings of the paper, such as the impact of the evolution of fire testing standards on the selection of materials for railway seats and the differences in fire performance of various materials under flame exposure. Additionally, with respect to the application of simulation techniques, future research directions could be proposed, such as optimizing railway seat material design based on simulations, or further exploring the application of new flame retardant materials.

Thank you for your comment, I have revised the conclusion in this regard.

Based on these points, my recommendation for the manuscript is a minor revision.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Thank you for reading and studying my work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have worked with my queries sufficiently.

Author Response

Thank you for reading and studying my work.