A Comprehensive Review of the Applications of Hybrid Evaporative Cooling and Solar Energy Source Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains information technical and innovative. The problem addressed is current and has relevance, which makes it significant. The paper is well organized. Interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results. 

 

This reviewer has identified the following main issues:

 

1)Literature review techniques must be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same.

2)Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures. The comparison of different methods using clear graphs should be explained.

3)Ensure that all figures and tables are referenced in the text and have clear captions. 

4)The objectives of the paper are outlined at the end of the section, which is good. However, you might consider expanding on the objectives a bit to provide a clearer roadmap for the reader.

5)The section briefly mentions gaps and objectives, which is a good start. To enhance clarity, consider rephrasing the sentence about the methodology to make it more concise and specific. You might also mention the methodology's significance in addressing the identified gaps

6)When citing specific authors or studies, it's helpful to provide publication years along with the references. This helps readers assess the recency of the sources.

 

7)Mentioning that future research could explore other types of membership functions is a good idea. It shows awareness of potential areas for improvement.

 

 

Author Response

As authors, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their patience and time, and for rendering invaluable comments on our manuscript (Sustainability-2681070). According to the comments from the editor and the reviewers, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised for consideration for potential publication in Sustainability. Revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Responses to the comments are provided in details in the ensuing sections:

The article contains information technical and innovative. The problem addressed is current and has relevance, which makes it significant. The paper is well organized. Interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results. This reviewer has identified the following main issues:

 

Comment 1: Literature review techniques must be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for his/her comment. The issues in the current system and how to overcome the same have been appropriately added to the revised manuscript. (Lines 418-423, Lines 489-494, Lines 518-521)

 

Comment 2: Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures. The comparison of different methods using clear graphs should be explained.

Response: The quality of all figures has been corrected in the revised manuscript according reviewer’s suggestion. (Figs. 3, 4, and 6) Moreover, the comparison of different methods using clear graphs has added in the revised manuscript. (Lines 301-302, and Fig. 8)

 

Comment 3: Ensure that all figures and tables are referenced in the text and have clear captions.

Response: Yes, all figures and tables are referenced in the text. Some captions have been modified in the manuscript. (Lines 187, 190, 221, 465, 478, 488, 515, 517)

 

Comment 4: The objectives of the paper are outlined at the end of the section, which is good. However, you might consider expanding on the objectives a bit to provide a clearer roadmap for the reader.

Response: According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the paragraphs have been revised in the manuscript. (Lines 598-602)

 

Comment 5: The section briefly mentions gaps and objectives, which is a good start. To enhance clarity, consider rephrasing the sentence about the methodology to make it more concise and specific. You might also mention the methodology's significance in addressing the identified gaps.

Response: According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the paragraphs have been revised in the manuscript. (Lines 536-562)

 

Comment 6: When citing specific authors or studies, it's helpful to provide publication years along with the references. This helps readers assess the recency of the sources.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for providing invaluable comments. Indeed, this comment is beneficial as it aids readers in evaluating the recency of the sources. While it is challenging to include publication years in the citation text due to the manuscript format requirements, we have addressed this concern by incorporating the publication years in all tables throughout the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3).

 

Comment 7: Mentioning that future research could explore other types of membership functions is a good idea. It shows awareness of potential areas for improvement.

Response: We are pleased to receive positive feedback from the reviewer. We remain committed to further exploring and expanding upon this topic in our forthcoming research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review manuscript provides an overview of evaporative cooling (EC) and solar energy (SE) systems and focus on the research of integrating EC with SE systems as a sustainable solution. I think in general this manuscript gives a comprehensive overview of this field and offers some valuable suggestions on the promising future directions for further investigations. Thus, I recommend the publication of this review and only have minor comments to the authors.

1. In section 2.4, 2.5 and 3, the authors spend a lot efforts on explaining the metrics to measure the efficiency of EC and SE systems as well as the mathematical models of them. I think it would beneficial for the authors to emphasize this also in the Abstract and Introduction to provide some context why those knowledge is important.

2. In section 5, it seems that the points raised in 5.2 for future directions are not directly related to the gaps of current research discussed in 5.1. I was wondering if the authors could consider addressing how to close some of the gaps in 5.2.

3. Image quality of Figure 3, 4, and 6 seems to be poor. I was wondering if the authors could consider replacing them with higher resolution.

4. I was wondering if the authors could combine Figure 5 into Figure 4 as 4(c).

5. The font of ‘solar’ in ‘3. Mathematical model of solar energy’ looks different compared with the rest of the text. Please change it.

Author Response

As authors, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their patience and time, and for rendering invaluable comments on our manuscript (Sustainability-2681070). According to the comments from the editor and the reviewers, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised for consideration for potential publication in Sustainability. Revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Responses to the comments are provided in details in the ensuing sections:

This review manuscript provides an overview of evaporative cooling (EC) and solar energy (SE) systems and focus on the research of integrating EC with SE systems as a sustainable solution. I think in general this manuscript gives a comprehensive overview of this field and offers some valuable suggestions on the promising future directions for further investigations. Thus, I recommend the publication of this review and only have minor comments to the authors:

 

Comment 1: In section 2.4, 2.5 and 3, the authors spend a lot efforts on explaining the metrics to measure the efficiency of EC and SE systems as well as the mathematical models of them. I think it would beneficial for the authors to emphasize this also in the Abstract and Introduction to provide some context why those knowledge is important.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her invaluable comment. We have been emphasized the importance of the mathematical models of EC and SE systems in the Abstract and Introduction according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 23-26, Lines 115-117)

 

Comment 2: In section 5, it seems that the points raised in 5.2 for future directions are not directly related to the gaps of current research discussed in 5.1. I was wondering if the authors could consider addressing how to close some of the gaps in 5.2.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her invaluable comment. Yes, we have been addressed the gaps between 5.2 and 5.1. In order to clearly see the difference for the reviewer, each of the point in 5.2 has also been matched one to the other. The modified results in the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 568-593)

 

Comment 3: Image quality of Figure 3, 4, and 6 seems to be poor. I was wondering if the authors could consider replacing them with higher resolution.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her invaluable comment. Yes, image quality of Figure 3, 4, and 6 have been corrected in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Figs. 3, 4, and 6)

 

Comment 4: I was wondering if the authors could combine Figure 5 into Figure 4 as 4(c)

Response: We appreciate the insightful comment from the reviewer. We apologize for the ambiguity caused by the improper phrasing of Fig. 5 caption in the previous manuscript. It is important to clarify that Fig. 5 represents a different evaporative cooler than the one depicted in Fig. 4. Specifically, one is a counter-flow system, and the other is a cross-flow system. We regret to inform the reviewer that combining Fig. 5 into Figure 4 is not feasible. The caption has been rectified in the revised manuscript. (Lines 187 and 190)

 

Comment 5: The font of ‘solar’ in ‘3’. Mathematical model of solar energy’ looks different compared with the rest of the text. Please change it.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. The font of ‘solar’ have been corrected in the revised manuscript. (Line 306)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This papier presents na interesting review regarding hybrid evaporative cooling systems. However, an interesting addition to the present content would be some information regarding new generations of PV panele, including eg. Perovskite panels.

Author Response

As authors, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their patience and time, and for rendering invaluable comments on our manuscript (Sustainability-2681070). According to the comments from the editor and the reviewers, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised for consideration for potential publication in Sustainability. Revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Responses to the comments are provided in details in the ensuing sections:

This paper presents an interesting review regarding hybrid evaporative cooling systems. However, an interesting addition to the present content would be some information regarding new generations of PV panele, including eg. Perovskite panels.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. Some information regarding new generations of PV panels [101-103] have been added in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 387-395)

[101] M.P. Belancon, M. Sandrini, V.S. Zanuto, R.F. Muniz, Glassy materials for Silicon-based solar panels: present and future, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 2023, Volume 619, 122548.

[102] P. Sabarish, U. Ramani, K. Sundararaju, A.T.S. Subramanian, A review on electro-mechanical properties of solar pho-tovoltaic panels with graphene material, Materials today: Proceedings 2022, Volume 69, pp. 1187-1192.

[103] K. Lari, A. Bruce, S. Sadatifar, R. Evins, Techno-economic analysis to determine the potential of perovskite-based PV blinds for buildings, Solar Energy 2023, Volume 265, 112052.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The novel contributions can be added. 

2. Section 2 can be explained along with Fig. 2. 

3. More recent studies can be added. 

4. Overall the paper is well documented, however, more details about physical components can be added. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Its fine 

Author Response

As authors, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their patience and time, and for rendering invaluable comments on our manuscript (Sustainability-2681070). According to the comments from the editor and the reviewers, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised for consideration for potential publication in Sustainability. Revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Responses to the comments are provided in details in the ensuing sections:

Comment 1: The novel contributions can be added.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. The novel contributions have been added in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 125-129)

 

Comment 2: Section 2 can be explained along with Fig. 2.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. Fig. 2 has been explained in Section 2 in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 138-143)

 

Comment 3: More recent studies can be added.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. More recent studies [98-103] have been added in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Lines 376-395)

[98] F.M. Abed, M.H. Zaidan, M. Hasanuzzaman, L. Kumar, A.K. Jasim, Modelling and experimental performance investi-gation of a transpired solar collector and underground heat exchanger assisted hybrid evaporative cooling system, Journal of Building Engineering 2021, Volume 44, 102620.

[99] Y.Z. Gao, D.X. Wu, Z.F. Dai, C.L. Wang, L.T. Zhu, J.L. Zhang, G.Y. Xu, X.S. Zhang, A passive evaporative cooling strategy to enhance the electricity production of hybrid PV-STEG system, Applied Energy 2023, Volume 349, 121689.

[100] T.N. Mekonen, M.A. Delele, S.W. Molla, Optimizing the performance of cotton bundle-based solar evaporative cooling system using a CFD model: model development, validation, and optimization, Solar Energy 2023, volume 264, 111991.

[101] M.P. Belancon, M. Sandrini, V.S. Zanuto, R.F. Muniz, Glassy materials for Silicon-based solar panels: present and future, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 2023, Volume 619, 122548.

[102] P. Sabarish, U. Ramani, K. Sundararaju, A.T.S. Subramanian, A review on electro-mechanical properties of solar pho-tovoltaic panels with graphene material, Materials today: Proceedings 2022, Volume 69, pp. 1187-1192.

[103] K. Lari, A. Bruce, S. Sadatifar, R. Evins, Techno-economic analysis to determine the potential of perovskite-based PV blinds for buildings, Solar Energy 2023, Volume 265, 112052.

 

Comment 4: Overall the paper is well documented, however, more details about physical components can be added.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comment. More details have been added in the revised manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. ((Lines 418-423, Lines 489-494, Lines 518-521)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors make all required modifications. I am in favor of publishing it

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine