Analysis of Equivalent CO2 Emissions of the Irrigation System—A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comments of all the reviewers, in my opinion, were very carefully and sufficiently prepared. At present, the article is suitable for publication
Author Response
Journal: Sustainability.
Title: Analysis of equivalent CO2 emissions of the irrigation system – a case study
Responses to Reviewer #1:
Dear reviewer, we would want to thank you for your positive comments and valuable suggestions. Also, for your time invested in reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments and consider that the manuscript was improved now. Below you can find our responses, point by point.
Reviewer 1
The comments of all the reviewers, in my opinion, were very carefully and sufficiently prepared. At present, the article is suitable for publication
Authors: Thank you for your kind revision.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled "Analysis of equivalent CO2 emissions of the irrigation system - a case study" addresses an important issue regarding the need to reduce CO2 emissions. The author's study is well written and its methodology is presented in detail. In the discussion, I missed more references to the literature, but the authors claim that there are no more papers because they reviewed 200 articles. I consider this to be sufficient justification. The results obtained in the study are clearly presented in the figures. I believe that the paper is suitable for publication in the journal,,Sustainability" after a few minor corrections:
Line 11 add the name of the country after the university.
Avoid the phrase ,,we" - try to use infinitives instead (e.g. line 12).
Line 36 the word ,,pea" is unnecessary.
Line 60 add parenthesis after GWP.
Try to replace words with synonyms. E.g. in lines 61-63 you use the word ,,focus" in each of the three sentences - change this.
Line 84 the words ,,Industry" and ,,Commercial" please write in lower case.
In the introduction section, please make the purpose of the research clear. Currently, it is too descriptive. The objective should be in this section and not in , "materials and methods".
In the introduction, please also explain exactly what LCA is. Currently, this topic is only mentioned and needs more introduction for the reader in the introduction.
Line 127 cross out the letter ,,e" after CO2. Or if CO2e is to be an abbreviation for CO2 equivalent, please define it the first time it is used.
Throughout the manuscript, please use exponential notation of units as required by the journal e.g. kWh/year replaced with kWh*year^-1
Line 203, please state the country in which the university is located and the exact coordinates of the experiment.
Please add a legend to Figure 2 (black line irrigation system). Please also indicate the source of the water.
Figure 3 is of poor quality. Please increase the font next to the descriptions.
In the list of references, please add DOI numbers to the articles.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
-
Author Response
Journal: Sustainability.
Title: Analysis of equivalent CO2 emissions of the irrigation system – a case study
Responses to Reviewer #1:
Dear reviewer, we would want to thank you for your positive comments and valuable suggestions. Also, for your time invested in reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments and consider that the manuscript was improved now. Below you can find our responses, point by point.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer #1: The paper entitled "Analysis of equivalent CO2 emissions of the irrigation system - a case study" addresses an important issue regarding the need to reduce CO2 emissions. The author's study is well written and its methodology is presented in detail. In the discussion, I missed more references to the literature, but the authors claim that there are no more papers because they reviewed 200 articles. I consider this to be sufficient justification. The results obtained in the study are clearly presented in the figures. I believe that the paper is suitable for publication in the journal,,Sustainability" after a few minor corrections:
Line 11 add the name of the country after the university.
Authors: Done
Avoid the phrase ,,we" - try to use infinitives instead (e.g. line 12).
Authors: We have removed “we” for the whole text. Line (12, 112, 257-261)
Line 36 the word ,,pea" is unnecessary.
Authors: We have removed this typo.
Line 60 add parenthesis after GWP.
Authors: We have removed this typo. Thanks
Try to replace words with synonyms. E.g. in lines 61-63 you use the word ,,focus" in each of the three sentences - change this.
Authors: Thank you for noticing this. We removed this repetition (Lines 68-71).
Line 84 the words ,,Industry" and ,,Commercial" please write in lower case.
Authors: Done.
In the introduction section, please make the purpose of the research clear. Currently, it is too descriptive. The objective should be in this section and not in , "materials and methods".
Authors: Thank you for this comment that we believe improves the manuscript. We moved this paragraph into the introduction section (Lines 111-117). We present now the aims of the manuscript and afterwards; we show the research questions answered in our work.
In the introduction, please also explain exactly what LCA is. Currently, this topic is only mentioned and needs more introduction for the reader in the introduction.
Authors: An explanation of the LCA method has been added in the introduction section (Lines 50-58).
Line 127 cross out the letter ,,e" after CO2. Or if CO2e is to be an abbreviation for CO2 equivalent, please define it the first time it is used.
Authors: Done (Line 128). Moreover, this acronym was added to the Nomenclature section of the manuscript (Line 486)
Throughout the manuscript, please use exponential notation of units as required by the journal e.g. kWh/year replaced with kWh*year^-1
Authors: Done (Lines 399,402 and Table 1)
Line 203, please state the country in which the university is located and the exact coordinates of the experiment.
Authors: Done. Lines (11, 209-210).
Please add a legend to Figure 2 (black line irrigation system). Please also indicate the source of the water.
Authors: we have redrawn figure 2 to include a legend, scale, and compass rose. We added information about the source of water (Lines 211-215).
Figure 3 is of poor quality. Please increase the font next to the descriptions.
Authors: Thank you for this comment. Figure 3 has been made again increasing the front text.
In the list of references, please add DOI numbers to the articles.
Authors: Done.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed the comments. And thus approved.
Comments on the Quality of English Language.
Author Response
Journal: Sustainability.
Title: Analysis of equivalent CO2 emissions of the irrigation system – a case study
Responses to Reviewer #3:
Dear reviewer, we would want to thank you for your positive comments and valuable suggestions. Also, for your time invested in reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments and consider that the manuscript was improved now. Below you can find our responses, point by point.
Reviewer 3
The authors addressed the comments. And thus approved.
Authors: Thank you for your kind revision.
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main question addressed by the research is to assess the emissions related to the useful life of the irrigation network on the campus of the University of Alicante.
The topic is relevant to the journal's field.
However, this is a modified emissions assessment several times, just on a different sample. Now it is the irrigation networks on the university campus.
The topic is moderately well developed, but it does not bring anything new to the issue. It confirms previous conclusions from the past, which are listed in the reference list.
It is a moderately prepared student thesis, rather than a scientific article bringing new information.
The links are not in the required format, nor are they consecutive. References have been inserted into the text and the order of references has not been changed. The links (reference numbers) are mixed up, and do not link the articles correctly.
e.g.: reference (25) is just inserted here, without any connection to the text, references (37,38) refer in the text again to an author who is not mentioned in the articles themselves..
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1-This term is given in the summary as GWP. Abbreviations should be given after the general explanation is made.
2- This sentence "Targeting the life stages with the highest emissions" is repeated. Repetitive sentences should be avoided in the article.
3- Introduction should be shortened, it is too long.
4-In the discussion section, very little analysis of the literature has been made. This should be increased. The results section is longer than the discussion section.
5-Also, I did not come across any statistical findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this study, the authors make use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method to measure a case study of the irrigation system in the University of Alicante. The study is interesting, however, there seems to be some edit need to go on further step. The comments are as follows:
Major comments
1. The authors may need to modify to specify the abbreviations in the manuscript. Such as GWP in the abstract is not specified. LCA, while specified in the abstract, is not in the main context. Also is SALCA-BD. This should be edited.
2. How is the irrigation sector contribution as a whole of the CO2 emission contribution? And how the current study contributes to this? It would be good if these high-level estimation is given, and thus promoting the value of the current study to the wider audience, rather than just shifting the LCA method to another sector.
3. Are there no other methods for measuring of irrigation CO2 emission? It would be good if the authors can give more literature review in this aspect.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage logic and extensive edit needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The study is important but needs more comprehensive discussion with reference to relevant recent studies. Some part of the conclusion section may be moved to discussion part.
The aim of the paper is to answer a series of questions: the stage in the system's life that produces the most emissions (I), the proportion between the different life stages (II), the decisions and policies to be adopted to reduce emissions (III), the influence of the different materials in the useful life of the infrastructure (IV) and the emissions derived from its manufacture and commissioning (V) in three types of pressurized irrigation system based on manufacturing materials
The topic is relevant in the field. It addresses an important topic of carbon dioxide emission in three different type of pressurized irrigation systems following LCA approach.
The authors have to improve the discussion section to address this issue. In the present form, the manuscript is incomplete in this respect. More number of relevant studies need to be discussed.
No specific improvement needed for Methodology.
The conclusion section may be shortened only retaining most relevant findings. In the present form, the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments to address the main questions. However, they are too elaborative in the conclusion, which needs to be shortened.
More number of studies should be referred for discussion section
Tables and figures are alright
Regards
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing may be necessary
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
