Theoretical Study on the Effect of Parallel Air Chambers Embedded in Rockwool Panels on the Energy Consumption of a Low-Energy High School
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read this article. While the topic is interesting, the paper presents some major limitations:
The introduction is not very useful. Therefore, the introduction should be extended very carefully. The introduction section should be rewritten again. The introduction should highlight the study's novelty and motivation and put some literature without any useful explanation.
I would suggest the author improve their theoretical discussion and arrives at their debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. The literature review is not presented in a good structure.
In the Materials and Methods part, please clarify the exact location of Salonta, Romania (Latitude and Longitude) with its climatic classification.
In the Discussion part, you didn't compare your achievement with other relative research. This part should be highlighted and clarified the research achievements.
The conclusion is wordy and long, it can be summarized.
There are several grammatical errors in the paper. Proof-read suggested.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the appreciation of our paper and for the time spent analyzing the paper. We revised our manuscript in accordance with all the recommendations of reviewers and we are very grateful and thankful for the suggestions and comments, as well as for the time spent reviewing it.
We recognize that some improvements were needed and believe with all changes performed the improved paper could constitute a new/useful contribution to the field, completing the existing findings.
Please find below the answers to the reviewer’s comments, remarks and questions. All the changes performed in the initial manuscript can be identified in the file Sustainability-1721434_R1. The required linguistic improvements were operated. All the improvements requested by the reviewers were analyzed and detailed answers and changesets in the manuscripts were operated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written and the topic is of interest. The advantages of using additional air layers within solid rockwood panels seem to be evident. The implementation of this solution is studied to bring savings in contamination both at the production level and in the applicability stage. Further studies could focus on the behaviour of real size panels or the effect of increasing the air layers on the system.
Some typos and clarifications within the text should be corrected and included. They are indicated as follows:
ï·’Line 50: ‘impose’ should be written as ‘imposes’.
ï·’ Table 1: please, write the names within the first column with capital letters to keep consistency within the format of other tables.
ï·’ In Table 1, please, explain the meaning of ‘nZEB’.
ï·’ In Figure 1, ‘vest’ should be written as ‘west’.
ï·’ In line 125, please, explain the meaning of ‘HVAC’.
ï·’ In Figure 6, the numbers within the picture cannot be read because of the small size. Please, increase their sizes or remove them.
ï·’ In Equation 1, the temperature difference is written different within the Table (D) and within the equation (), please choose one symbol for sake of consistency.
ï·’ In Table 4, please write the words within the second column with capital letters for sake of maintaining consistency with other tables.
ï·’ In Table 5, please write the names within columns 2 and 3, with capital letters for the sake of consistency with other tables.
ï·’ Equation (1) after line 300, should be numbered as 2, as there exist a previous Equation. Please, correct the number of the following equations accordingly. In this Equation, please be consistent with the or D symbol.
ï·’ In line 311, after the word ‘acceleration’, it should be included the word ‘respectively’.
ï·’ In line 314, substitute ‘calculated at’ by ‘calculated as’.
ï·’ In line 319, correct the format of the expression: (H/tgap)-0.3 à (H/tgap)-0.3. The same in line 322.
ï·’ In line 321, include a comma after ‘this event’as ‘this event, though’
ï·’ In line 326, include a comma after ‘T1 and T2’.
ï·’ In line 333, include a comma after ‘exterior walls’.
ï·’ In line 338, include a comma after ‘(19-22 mm)’.
ï·’ In line 349, include a comma after ‘flux density’.
ï·’ In line 450, remove ‘in’ in the following expression ‘between -6.7ºC to -15.2ºC in for’.
ï·’ In Tables 9 and 10, please write the words of the first column with capital letters to be consistent with the format of the rest of the tables.
ï·’ In line 602, include a comma after ‘approximately 6.9%’.
ï·’ In line 612, include a comma after ‘approximately 11%’.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the appreciation of our paper and for the time spent to analyze the paper. We revised our manuscript in accordance with all the recommendations of reviewers and we are very grateful and thankful for the suggestions and comments, as well as for the time spent in reviewing it.
We recognize that some improvements were needed and believe with all changes performed the improved paper could constitute a new/useful contribution into the field, completing the existing findings.
Please find below the answers to the reviewer’s comments, remarks and questions. All the changes performed in the initial manuscript can be identified in the file Sustainability-1721434_R1. The required linguistic improvements were operated. All the improvements requested by the reviewers were analyzed and detailed answers and changesets in the manuscripts were operated.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manusript is well written. However, the authors need to make following revisions:
1. To more clearly address the gaps of existing studies.
2. To more clearly point out the theoretical contributions of the study.
3. To more clearly indicate the practical implications of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the appreciation of our paper and for the time spent analyzing the paper. We revised our manuscript in accordance with all the recommendations of reviewers and we are very grateful and thankful for the suggestions and comments, as well as for the time spent reviewing it.
We recognize that some improvements were needed and believe with all changes performed the improved paper could constitute a new/useful contribution to the field, completing the existing findings.
Please find below the answers to the reviewer’s comments, remarks and questions. All the changes performed in the initial manuscript can be identified in the file Sustainability-1721434_R1. The required linguistic improvements were operated. All the improvements requested by the reviewers were analyzed and detailed answers and changesets in the manuscripts were operated.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
In current study (sustainability-1721434), the authors empirically investigated and analyzed: Theoretical study on the Effect of Parallel Air Chambers embedded in Rockwool Panels to the Energy Consumption of a low-energy high school. I read carefully all parts of the article. It’s well-constructed, with greatest methodology and discussion. The paper can be considered for publication with minor correction in content of abstract.
Comments
The content of article well-constructed and discussed.
Line 15- 18, The authors need to separate aim and method of research in two separated sentences that mention exactly method specification.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the appreciation of our paper and for the time spent analyzing the paper. We revised our manuscript in accordance with all the recommendations of reviewers and we are very grateful and thankful for the suggestions and comments, as well as for the time spent reviewing it.
We recognize that some improvements were needed and believe with all changes performed the improved paper could constitute a new/useful contribution to the field, completing the existing findings.
Please find below the answers to the reviewer’s comments, remarks and questions. All the changes performed in the initial manuscript can be identified in the file Sustainability-1721434_R1. The required linguistic improvements were operated. All the improvements requested by the reviewers were analyzed and detailed answers and changesets in the manuscripts were operated.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English language and style are fine but minor spell check is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
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
In their article "The implementation of a buildings insulation system based on air layers. Harmful emissions according to theoretical & physical measurements" the authors present a study on the emission reduction caused by the introduction of air layers inside insulation materials. Their analysis and article are however not fit for publication.
Firstly, the article contains a variety of mistakes. "The hole building life cycle" is to become "the whole building life cycle", "EN ISO 6949" should become "EN ISO 6946", line 161 lists "0.38 W/mK" instead of "0.038 W/mK", Table 2 mentions a volume of 0.0375 cm³ of rockwool, reference 11 refers to two standards, the first of which is referenced again in reference 15, reference 21 is incomplete, whereas reference 22 and 23 should be merged into a single reference, ... Despite there being five authors mentioned, it is clear that they have not dependably reviewed the manuscript.
Secondly, the entire study is based on the premise that the embodied energy is very important. To support that claim, [6] is referenced, which attributes less than half of the total energy spent to the operational phase. This number is, in the opinion of the reviewer, not generally representative. The authors confirm this notion, by showing later on that the emissions related to the production of the insulation are only equivalent to the emissions of half of a year's worth of energy consumption during the operational phase. More on this below.
Thirdly, Figure 1 nor Figure 4 do well present the configuration as intended for practice or for the thermal conductivity measurement, given that only limited dimensions are given. Especially Figure 4 is somewhat disconcerting, because the air space shown there appears to remain small (15 by 15 cm² perhaps ?), while the metering area is 50 by 50 cm². This means that the measurement sample, with only a small air cavity, is not representative for the actual material wherein the air cavities are nearly as large as the batt itself.
Fourthly, the thermal conductivity measurement on the sample with air cavity imposes a downward heat flow, hence suppressing all internal convection in the sample. The main aim of insulation materials is actually to suppress the internal convection in the cavity they are applied in, by increasing the air flow resistance via their solid fractions. The configuration suggested by the authors is however the step back, whererin the solid fraction is partially removed. It is thus highly like that the very air permeable material obtained will suffer from strong internal convection when applied as wall and roof insulation (with horizontal and upward heat flow respectively). This effect is not obtained and not measured however when imposing a downward heat flow in the thermal conductivity measurement.
Based on the two previous arguments, it is the reviewer's opinion that the 0.042 W/mK measured for ISPA is an overly positive valuation, and that (much) larger thermal conductivities are much more likely. This of course disturbs the entire confrontation between the ISPA and EIS later on.
Fifthly, the concept of the material is based on the premise that the "thermal insulation properties of air cavities vary directly proportional according to the thickness until 25 mm". This is however not true: when plotting resistance vs thickness, a parabolic curve is obtained. This implies that the choice for 20 mm air cavities is suboptimal, it would have been better to choose for more and thinner cavities. Finally, the authors appear to overestimate the cavity resistance: for a 20 mm cavity, the resistance of 0.18 m²K/W translates to an equivalent thermal conductivity of 0.11 W/mK, four times bigger than that of air, and three times bigger than that of standard rockwool. While the cavities may save material, they certainly will not save space.
Sixthly, the lower overall emissions for ISPA have actually virtually nothing to do with the embodied energy, but everything with the bigger thickness of the material and hence the bigger resistance. This leads to a final argument that can be easily made against ISPA: if a thickness of 22/37 cm of standard rock wool would be compared to the current ISPA configuration, then the embodied emissions would rise with some 50 %, but this would be easily compensated by the lower emissions during the operation phase.
Seventhly, one can wonder why the measurements on this school building are being dragged into this paper, but the reviewer thinks that his review is in the current version sufficiently well elaborated.
All in all hence, the concept of the ISPA is intrinsically misguided, as would be revealed if more correct measurements are done.
Reviewer 2 Report
- You make confusion between, energy aspect and ecological aspect, the title must clearly reflect the research area, you need to improve it
- In the introduction section, you make a confusion between the environmental aspects and generical aspects. Reform of the introduction section is needed.
- In the line 50 “According to previous studies, during the life cycle of existing buildings” which studies you need to clarify that.
- The aim of your study is not clear
- In line 66 “with thicknesses comprised between 20-25 mm is 0,18 W/(m∙K).” source is required.
- In section 2, lines 69-73 include general information, remove that
- Line 79 “of air gaps wider than 20 - 25 mm the heat transfer coefficient increases … “source required.
- In line 88 “The new insulation panel consists of two types of layers: “according to which criteria
- Figure 1, not clear, you need to show the mechanism.
- In lines 102-103 the authors wrote, “The IPSA was already analysed in the previous studies in order to predict the influence of the air gaps on the possible moisture accumulation using the software WUFI [12].” What do you mean?
- In figure 4 “is that a company name, or what ??”. a promotion for a company is not accepted
- In figure 5 “which is the target building, I see many buildings. you need to focus on the target building
- In line 203 What are the differences between D insulation and D layer??? - short name must be used?? for example, Dins.
- Figure 8 is not clear
- In the discussion section, line 349 the authors wrote “ lover the embodied GWP of existing buildings (24) 348 (25) (26) is followed” what you mean?
