Recommendations for Running a Tandem of Adsorption Chillers Connected in Series and Powered by Low-Temperature Heat from District Heating Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article looks interesting and applicable. I am not an expert on this subject, but it is well written and argued. Figures 1, 2, 10 and 11 should improve their resolution.
Author Response
Thank you for the review. We improved the stated figures.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please check and correct if necessary:
line 240: "and the the lowest possible return temperature"
line 247: "water mass flow range was analyzed in range 0.2-3.0 kg/s"
line 282: "If both devices run in sync the COP of the secondary chiller drops"
line 301: "has been carried out using a set of for-loops that changes"
line 325: "Figures 14 and ?? show"
line 336: "if both units use the symmetric CTA instead."
Figure 15(?) COP is missing before Conclusion!
after line 362 please add the abbreviations SCP and CCHP
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presented for the evaluation is committed to investigating the implications of running a cooling system of two silica gel/water adsorption chillers powered by a district heating network. The topic of the paper is appropriate for the Energies Journal.
The manuscript title gives sufficient information and expresses the content of the work, perhaps is a bit long.
In the introduction, the authors should provide more background information on the current state of scientific research in the subject area of the manuscript. There are insufficient references. The novelty of the manuscript is not clearly highlighted.
Page 3, line 86, specify the researches studies.
The material and method section is missing. Some reorganization in the paper structure is needed.
Page 4, line 125, avoid personal pronouns; the text should be neutral; it has been decided, or the authors have decided.
In the results and discussion, section Figures are presented clearly; however, they are missing more detailed explanations and comparisons.
Page 7, include for Table 1 and Table 2 abbreviation legend or explanation underneath the tables.
The page7, line 209, state the piping connection values.
Page 13, line 317, provide explanations or the possible reasons for the device to start running asynchronously.
Page 13, line 325, missing the number of the Figure ??
The conclusions part sums the research and provides the core of the presented results. However, the authors should avoid references in conclusion.
The given references match the manuscript subject; nevertheless, the paper is lacking novel literature.
The paper should be accepted for publication after a major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted in present form.
