Evaluation of a 0.7 kW Suspension-Type Dehumidifier Module in a Closed Chamber and in a Small Greenhouse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented article is a test of a dehumidifier for a greenhouse. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of agriculture and monitoring. The authors have done a certain search and analysis of various sources, carried out interesting calculations and experiments, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted: 1. The authors should more specifically indicate the scientific novelty of the work. Have other researchers used such dehumidifiers before? 2. Multiple citations should be avoided by the authors (for example, [8–14]) and should be cited separately according to the information cited. 3. The authors should consider in more detail, give technical characteristics and schemes of the considered analog dehumidifiers. 4. What is the rationale for the choice of used equipment, sensors and software? 5. What are the reasons for such significant deviations from the calculated graphs obtained in Figure 5? 6. What conclusions can be drawn from Figure 6 and Table 4, as well as Figure 7 and Table 5? Also, what conclusions can the authors draw from Figure 8 and Table 6, as well as Figure 9 and Table 7? 7. The information indicated at the beginning of the "Discussion" section should be given in the form of graphs and diagrams. 8. The authors should pay attention to "Agrivoltaics" and use solar modules to power various sensors and a dehumidifier, which will contribute to energy savings and sustainable agricultural development. 9. Where and how do the authors plan to implement the results obtained in the work? 10. Authors should add a section "Directions for further research" where they should describe their planned work in the area under consideration. In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without flaws. After eliminating these remarks and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article may be of interest to readers of the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Correct the sentence “The primary parameter the consumes significant energy is maintaining the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system [2–4].”

The introduction seems to be long and repetitive in some statements which can be reduced.

The exact location in both chambers and size of the dehumidifier are not mentioned.

It is recommended to use an additional dehumidifier module at the bottom layer, although it can be seen that in most of the experiments it was found that the humidity was lower at the bottom layer after operation.

Some statistical analysis can be added to show the difference in humidity in different layers in vertical as well as longitudinal directions.

A simulation model can be added for conditions in large greenhouse using multiple dehumidifiers.

A table can be added showing temperature data at different location during the experiment. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

evaluate 108

This paper has evaluated a small-sized suspension-type dehumidifier module in terms of humidity response and variability in a closed chamber. The humidity is important in greenhouse. However, this paper has the issues below.

1. The paper only has evaluate the to improve the response time and uniformity of the humidity control. It is not relevant for the sustainable. The object of the paper should be improved.

2. What is the control methods? PID, BP, AI or other, the methods should be presented.

3. What is the evaluation method in this paper. The detail methods should be addressed.

4. What is the results for this paper, only the reduction in humidity or the temperature and humidity comparison? The results  related with the goal of the sustainability should be addressed.

5. After the evaluation, how many the energy consumption had been saved ? 

6. How this evaluation contribute for the green or sustainable development of the greenhouse?

7. The abstract and conclusions should be improved with more about the sustainability in greenhouse.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I find the present manuscript Evaluation of a 0.7-kW Suspension-type Dehumidifier Module in a Closed Chamber and in a Small Greenhouse in almost ready-to-publish form.

I am pleased with the quality of the presentation and the details related to the investigated dehumidifier module.

I find mathematical and physical background precise and useful in further investigations.

In order to highlight your setup and results it will be useful to add the following changes to the manuscript:

1. at the end of the introduction chapter please describe succinctly the following content of the manuscript. This change will add readability to the reader

2. If you would like to test the dehumidifier in a real test with plants please introduce a paragraph regarding your input on what expectancies you have for real experiments with plants. This will help elevate your experience and input into how the greenhouses work.

3. Is there a way to simulate an artificial simulation of a real experiment with plants? If so, add a paragraph to the paper.

4. If you have future plans to this module please introduce a paragraph in the conclusion sections. This will help you gain recognition over time in this domain. 

5. Please describe some limits of your in a more complete form. I suggest adding design limitations in subsection 2.1 in order to clear the reader's assumptions and expectancies from the start. Please add a paragraph regarding the water-tightness of the greenhouse polyisocyanurate insulation or if there are any concerns of error from other sources out of your control.

I look forward to seeing the final manuscript.

I hope you'll find the above suggestions compelling enough to make changes to the manuscript. 

Good luck with your research!

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper was revised well.