Tests of Fire Circuit Breakers (FCBs) to Assess Their Suitability for Use in Construction Objects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The review paper deals with a summary of a past experience in using fire circuit breakers as well as it describes the method of laboratory testing of their components to evaluate their suitability for use in construction objects and presents test results for numerous tested devices. All the references are appropriate and cited correctly in the manuscript. Additionally, there are no any excessive self-citations. English language has some minor mistakes.

In order to improve quality of the manuscript, the authors should follow the comments below:

1) Reference list should be formatted according to MDPI style.

2) EMC testing should be described in more details.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of myself and the co-authors

TP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Difficult to compare against a similar, prior submission. Would suggest authors highlight the changes made with colored text or similar methods.

Manuscript does not appear to fix one of the major concerns raised by a prior reviewer in that the samples are not presented in enough detail for a reader to replicate the study results. There is a single line in "4. Results" about "activating devices: 36 pieces received positive results in environmental class 2 (23 pieces of type A and 13 pieces of type B)," that authors use as a result to confirm suitability for use of FCB elements. However, the 36 pieces aren't described in terms of where they are sourced from or how they are specifically any different - why would one expect that a device marketed as FCB isn't suitable? The paper reads as a quick overview of the regulatory guidelines around FCB but does not present itself as original, novel research to the reader.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of myself and the co-authors

TP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript seems to continue the research of a part of authors in the domain of thermal degradation for products used in building installations (i.e. the manuscript with the title ”Application assessment of electrical cables during Smoldering and flaming combustion” published by Applied Sciences MDPI revue). In the abstract usually is described briefly the novelty of the research and some outcomes - not giving definitions. The usage of circuit breakers is already known. Only testing them is not a novelty. The manuscript should reveal the originality of the test if there is. I appreciate your effort but the manuscript must be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of myself and the co-authors

TP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors have sufficiently addressed initial issues. May require minor edits to figure/tables to improve the final presentation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of myself and the co-authors

TP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for taking into consideration the suggestions made by the reviewers. The abstract is not a little bit too long. Usually it express briefly the content of the paper. Maybe it could be reduced. Also, instead of writing Source: own elaboration you can easily change the title of the figure (i.e. novel configuration, or proposed configuration). The paper is improved but still a little changes must be done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of myself and the co-authors

TP

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review paper deals with a summary of a past experience in using fire circuit breakers as well as it describes the method of laboratory testing of their components to evaluate their suitability for use in construction objects and presents test results for numerous tested devices. All the references are appropriate and cited correctly in the manuscript. Additionally, there are no any excessive self-citations. English language has some minor mistakes.

In order to improve quality of the manuscript, the authors should follow the comments below:

1) One of titles of the sections should be “conclusions”.

2) Reference list should be formatted according to MDPI style.

3) EMC testing should be described in more details.

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript lacks sufficient details as to what research methods were carried out, it is quite impossible for one to replicate the results without more information. Study outcomes are also lacking documented, quantitative measures. In its current form the manuscript appears as a rehash of regulatory requirements for a fire circuit breaker without contributing new information to the field. If authors intend to publish this work, this reviewer would recommend significantly cutting down on the repetitive explanations of the legality/importance of code and simply cite the regulatory concerns that were tested and to expand on the particular methods employed for verification and the specific test outcomes for each sample.

Reviewer 3 Report

No need to give details about circuit breakers - this is already known. The abstract should reveal the contribution of your research comparing with the existing one. I consider that is important the analyze of the fire circuit breakers in different countries. It is not clear the novelty of the paper. You presented only the tests according to the requirements for fire circuit breakers and their results. Only presenting some experiments in order to fulfill the legal requirements are not enough. If improving the paper adding some comparison with the research results already obtain and presenting a new method should be better. The paper does not mention what type of fire circuit breaker was tested. The contribution of the research is not specify.