Life Cycle Assessment of Dynamic Water Flow Glazing Envelopes: A Case Study with Real Test Facilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments:

• Abbreviation AEC (Architecture Engineering Construction) not introduced. Generally it is recommended to add a list of abbreviations.
• it is recommended to change units to superscript format (kWh.m^-2)
• I have my doubts that it might be wise to formulate cost estimates up to cents, same is true for exact values of GWP, and other indicators.
• What can not be seen is the higher degree of maintainance and early replacement of systems including water filled pipes and pumps. These systems regularly will have renewel times by far less than by 50 years. Moreover, a limitations section should be included.

As such, i pleas for major revisions.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers and the Editor for their detailed comments and suggestions for our manuscript. We firmly believe that their comments have been very useful in order to identify important areas which required improvement. After completion of the edition, the revised manuscript has benefited from such an improvement in its overall presentation and clarity. Please find below a point-by-point description of how each comment is addressed within the manuscript. The original reviewer’s comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider that the article will benefit if the author makes remarks within the manuscript regarding the following aspects:

1. What is the main contribution of the article? Please explain in I
2. What is the overall structure of the article? Please explain in I
3. The analysis of the existing research literature is not very clear, please refine it.
4. All graphics are not very clear to see, please make corrections.
5. For material presented to flow I suggest table of symbols.
6. Please itemize your main contributions or innovations inI
7. Please add the corresponding figure in Discussion.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers and the Editor for their detailed comments and suggestions for our manuscript. We firmly believe that their comments have been very useful in order to identify important areas which required improvement. After completion of the edition, the revised manuscript has benefited from such an improvement in its overall presentation and clarity. Please find below a point-by-point description of how each comment is addressed within the manuscript. The original reviewer’s comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In introduction, line 52 to 72 should be included in LCA methodology section. In introduction, short sentence about the significance or possibility of LCA to solve the sustainability problems would be sufficient.
2. From line 91 to 107, the description of WFG should be added in the first part of materials and methods. It seems this discussions are repeating across different sections.
3. Before starting section 2.2 and 2.3, general description of the LCA methodology is required based on ISO standard.
4. The literature review section is almost missing. Before starting the methodology section, include a separate section for literature review of the existing studies including the comparison table, which would help to justify your contribution in this field.
5. The fonts in the figures are quite blurry. Please change the color and font.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers and the Editor for their detailed comments and suggestions for our manuscript. We firmly believe that their comments have been very useful in order to identify important areas which required improvement. After completion of the edition, the revised manuscript has benefited from such an improvement in its overall presentation and clarity. Please find below a point-by-point description of how each comment is addressed within the manuscript. The original reviewer’s comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for the itnegration of my comments.

Regarding the units: Just because everybody else does it in a questionable fashion, it does not mean that should be done that way.

And if you deny to use superscript form, which by the way expressively was missunderstood by you (Liter/min^-1 m^-2 would be Liter.min^-1.m^-2; W.m^-2.K^-1 is commonly used in literature, especially in anglo-american context), then at least set brackets correclty: W/(m²K) and Liter/(min.m²). without brackets, although commonly used, is mathematically ambigous.

 

As such I please for minor revision and accept then.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments.

We have changed the units on the text and figures according to your suggestions.