Electrical Efficiency Investigation on Photovoltaic Thermal Collector with Two Different Coolants
, Haitham A. Mahmoud 1, Mohammed A. El-Meligy 1, Emad Mahrous Awwad 2, Sachin Salunkhe 3, Vishal Naranje 4, R. Swarnalatha 5 and Jaber E. Abu Qudeiri 6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Te reviewer has following questions or comments required the authors to improve:
1. Keywords:
The keywords of “water” and “fluid” can be deleted because they are too in general words and not suitable for keyword in this study.
2. Abstract:
(1) The authors claimed that “The design and development of a photovoltaic thermal collector (PVT) was developed in this study, and it was also assessed in terms of electrical efficiency and electrical thermal efficiency”. The sentence may be revised as “The design and development of a photovoltaic thermal (PVT) collector was developed in this study, and it was also assessed in terms of electrical efficiency and electrical thermal efficiency”.
(2) Please give the full name of the acronym of “LPM.” and “MnO”, when it first presented in Abstract and Text.
3. Introduction:
(1) The authors claimed that “Nonetheless, it has its drawbacks, such as increasing the temperature of the solar panel by 10C being known to produce a 0.5 percent decrease in electrical efficiency for silicon cells..”. The word “10C” may be as “10 ℃”.
(2) The subscripts of the acronym of “SiO2” and “TiO2” should be properly given.
(3) Please give the novelty of this study on the Introduction section.
4. 4.1 Electrical performance:
Equations (1) - (5), please define clearly or give more information of the symbols (or the acronyms) in these equations for the readers to understand.
5. In References:
The authors should be check the Reference Format according to the Sustainability Journal.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewer,
Please see the attached file.
Kind regards
Jaber
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Nice work
The paper should have several improvements in styling to present their work more concisely and readable. The current quality of the styling is close to a report format and the authors did not pay close attention to edit their text like as little as subscribipting text. They should revise their styling and formating first before the content is assessed.
Page 1 Line 42 – input quantitative evidence of GHG emissions. it should also contain more references about GHG
Page 2 line 51 – input Celsius unit with degree sign properly
There are several text where numbers for elements like Oxygen are not subscripted (line 77 for exmaple). Please fix them. Some units are not subscripted properly too
Line 95,98- percent and value should not have spacing
Line 99,116 119,147 and conclusion (and more)– use % are not percent as text. Keep them consistent. Inconsistency makes it look like it was written by several authors or written in different days without cross check which makes it look unprofessional.
Line 148 – spacing between unit and values properly
Combine figure 7- 14 into a few groups. having them all separately make the paper length and redundant.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewer,
Please see the attached file.
Kind regards
Jaber
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revised manuscript reports that electrical efficiency investigation on photovoltaic thermal collector with two different coolants. This study is interested to the readers.
The authors have addressed my concerns and the manuscript was revised accordingly. The quality of this manuscript has been improved.
