Optimization of a Combination of Thermal Insulation and Cool Roof for the Refurbishment of Social Housing in Southern Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
How come did the authors only simulate one value of solar irradiance? In a real system exposed to solar irradiance it will be subjected to different values of solar irradiance. In general, the manuscript is well written and suitable, however, the authors must attend the following comments:
Comments on manuscript Optimization of a combination of thermal insulation and cool roof for the refurbishment of social housing in Southern Spain.
In line 9 of the abstract, the authors mention that they considered a combination of low emissivity coatings with thermal insulation. However, I believe that they should write “solar reflective coatings” instead of “low emissivity coatings”
No quantitative results are shown in the abstract. How much energy did the optimized roof save?
The authors use sometimes “cool roofs” and others use “cold roofs”. Authors must use the same name throughout the manuscript, and I believe that the correct words are “cool roofs”. Please check lines 5, 36, 77, 107, 123, etc.
Please add more updated references of the current year, the literature review does not contain references of the year 2021. I recommend adding some references to the latest subject literature such as:
- Effective R-value approach to comprehend the essence of integrated opaque passive substrate properties. Journal of Building Engineering 2021; 44: 102865 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102865
- Influence of Traditional and Solar Reflective Coatings on the Heat Transfer of Building Roofs in Mexico. Applied Sciences 2021; 11(7):3263. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11073263
- Impact of weather data and climate change projections in the refurbishment design of residential buildings in cooling dominated climate. Applied Energy 303; 117584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117584
In line 290 the authors should correctly write the word “Köppen”
There is no validation or verification of the model used by the authors. This section is essential so that the readers can trust your results. Authors must solve a problem solved by other authors to verify that the model they used is reliable.
The authors must give a physical explanation of the results. They must add to the description of Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 an interpretation from a physical viewpoint.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please read the review in attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was substantially improved, the authors have attended all comments raised by the reviewer. I have only three minor observations that need to be addressed before publishing the manuscript:
In line 16, correct the superscript in m2
In line 298, erase the word "degrees" before the word Kelvin.
In the references section, the number of reference number 31 is missing.
Author Response
The manuscript was substantially improved, the authors have attended all comments raised by the reviewer. I have only three minor observations that need to be addressed before publishing the manuscript:
In line 16, correct the superscript in m2
The superscipt has been corrected.
In line 298, erase the word "degrees" before the word Kelvin.
The word "degrees" has been erased.
In the references section, the number of reference number 31 is missing.
The reference has been corrected.
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please add your answer to the point 18 of my review in the text of the last version of manuscript.
Thank you
Author Response
Please add your answer to the point 18 of my review in the text of the last version of manuscript.
The answer has been added.
Thank you for your comments.
