Rainwater Harvesting System for Industrial Buildings: The Case Study of Continental Advanced Antenna, Vila Real, Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally a good and interesting case study.
Some editing in relation to use of English and structure of some sentences.
For example, in the abstract and another part of the paper i do not think the use of the term hypothesis is appropriate.
Similarly, Pg 2 ln 46 - 54 some repetition
Pg 2 ln 58 -64 Would a diagram of a basic RWHS system aid the understanding of your paper.
Pg 3 ln 95 - 106 Suggest reword - sentence too long........these are just a few examples to illustrate possible editorial changes.
I think the use of a Yield Before Spillage (YBS) rather than a Yield After Spillage (YAS) requires some justification/explanation.
Similarly what is the 'Maximum use Method' does this require some explanation.
What are the implications of using a daily time step rather than an hourly or monthly time step.
Pg 4 - 5 Sect. 3.1.2, 3.1.3 & 3.1.4 - would a flow chart be useful to explain modelling procedure.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See above for examples
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer #1, that were very relevant and considered in the revision of our article. Responses are presented below.
Rev#1: Some editing in relation to use of English and structure of some sentences.
For example, in the abstract and another part of the paper i do not think the use of the term hypothesis is appropriate.
Similarly, Pg 2 ln 46 - 54 some repetition
Authors: The article was revised and many improvements were made in the language, including the ones indicated by Rev #1.
Rev#1: Pg 2 ln 58 -64 Would a diagram of a basic RWHS system aid the understanding of your paper.
Authors: Great suggestion. The diagram was included.
Rev#1: Pg 3 ln 95 - 106 Suggest reword - sentence too long........these are just a few examples to illustrate possible editorial changes.
Authors: The sentence was rewritten in the general language review that we made.
Rev#1: I think the use of a Yield Before Spillage (YBS) rather than a Yield After Spillage (YAS) requires some justification/explanation.
Authors: The suggested explanation was included in chapter 3.1.2: “It could have been considered YAS but it is more penalizing than YBS, in the sense that consumption is limited to the reserve volume, and a possible surplus of RW is rejected before the water is consumed throughout the day. Since this industrial building has a continuous daily use in the social areas (with water consumption during the rains), YBS was admitted.” A YAS will be more suitable when RW is used only when it does not rain, such as with exclusive supply to irrigation and irrigation systems.
Rev#1: Similarly what is the 'Maximum use Method' does this require some explanation.
Authors: The suggested explanation was included in chapter 3.1.3.
Rev#1: What are the implications of using a daily time step rather than an hourly or monthly time step.
Authors: The daily time step is ideal in terms of program processing time and realism in modeling. Essentially, to obtain a realistic variation of the water inputs and outputs of the reservoir, the ideal would be simulating with hourly time step, but when doing it with 10 years (recommended period for RWHS sizing) the program becomes unfeasible due to the time needed for processing. On the other hand, modelling with monthly data admits average daily volumes that end up hiding variations in rainfall and non-potable demand, making the results too optimistic and unrealistic.
Therefore, the daily time passage turns out to be the ideal in terms of the program's operation, still achieving a good level of approximation to reality considering rainier days, with more water consumption and the opposites. It is also the time step recommended in the Portuguese technical specification used for this study (ANQIP 2002) and also in the European Standard EN 16941-1 which states that “a detailed approach for large and complex projects and/or projects with irregular demand and yield based on a daily time step”
Pg 4 - 5 Sect. 3.1.2, 3.1.3 & 3.1.4 - would a flow chart be useful to explain modelling procedure.
Authors: The suggested flow chart was included as Fig 3, in the beginning of chapter 3.1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a case study on rainwater harvesting, retention and utilisation using a specific industrial building project as an example.
The authors briefly reviewed existing publications on the economic use of rainwater at the site of collection. The main content of the article is a technical-economic study of the solution of a rainwater harvesting and utilisation system for an industrial hall in a specific location in Portugal.
The results obtained and the analysed scenarios related to higher or lower rainfall confirm the general conclusion - the more rainfall, the higher the capacity of the rainwater harvesting retention tank. Obviously, further predictable technical parameters of the installation and economic parameters, related to the efficiency and payback time of additional investments, are connected to this relationship.
The article is well written, its structure is correct, and the results and conclusions provided - confirm the generally known trends.
This article is an example of a practical case study - it can serve as a model for technical and economic analysis for similar investments in other regions of Europe.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer #2.
Rev#2: This paper presents a case study on rainwater harvesting, retention and utilisation using a specific industrial building project as an example.
The authors briefly reviewed existing publications on the economic use of rainwater at the site of collection. The main content of the article is a technical-economic study of the solution of a rainwater harvesting and utilisation system for an industrial hall in a specific location in Portugal.
The results obtained and the analysed scenarios related to higher or lower rainfall confirm the general conclusion - the more rainfall, the higher the capacity of the rainwater harvesting retention tank. Obviously, further predictable technical parameters of the installation and economic parameters, related to the efficiency and payback time of additional investments, are connected to this relationship.
The article is well written, its structure is correct, and the results and conclusions provided - confirm the generally known trends.
This article is an example of a practical case study - it can serve as a model for technical and economic analysis for similar investments in other regions of Europe.
Authors. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work aims to evaluate whether using rainwater harvesting systems (RWHS) in social areas of industrial sites represents a feasible solution. A case study is presented to find the best solution concerning saved water volume and payback period length. Different scenarios are considered from rain data: the average year seems to be the most appropriate and, in this context, the one with the shortest return on investment.
Line 121, explain shortly what it means.
Line 126-130: I suggest to explain better this concept
Line 146: change ‘mca’ in ‘mwc’ or ‘mH20’
Line 156: change ‘several’ to ‘some’
Line 175: Maximum Use Method, explain shortly what does it mean and add references
Line 188: define which type of rain data is used (depth i.e. volume per unit of surface)
Line 211: change ‘accesses’ to ‘assesses’
Line 211: what does it mean ‘significant’? Explain better
Lines 257-260: This situation is not clear!
Figs2,3,4: The month's name must be in English
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEven though I am not a native English speaker, I believe some small revisions are necessary.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer #3, that were very relevant and considered in the revision of our article. Responses are presented below.
Rev#3: This work aims to evaluate whether using rainwater harvesting systems (RWHS) in social areas of industrial sites represents a feasible solution. A case study is presented to find the best solution concerning saved water volume and payback period length. Different scenarios are considered from rain data: the average year seems to be the most appropriate and, in this context, the one with the shortest return on investment.
Rev#3: Line 121, explain shortly what it means.
Authors: The suggested explanation was included in chapter 3.1.2: “It could have been considered YAS but it is more penalizing than YBS, in the sense that consumption is limited to the reserve volume, and a possible surplus of RW is rejected before the water is consumed throughout the day. Since this industrial building has a continuous daily use in the social areas (with water consumption during the rains), YBS was admitted.” A YAS will be more suitable when RW is used only when it does not rain, such as with exclusive supply to irrigation and irrigation systems.
Rev#3: Line 126-130: I suggest to explain better this concept
Authors: The suggested explanation was included in chapter 3.1.3.
Rev#3: Line 146: change ‘mca’ in ‘mwc’ or ‘mH20’
Authors: Done
Rev#3: Line 156: change ‘several’ to ‘some’
Authors: Done
Rev#3: Line 175: Maximum Use Method, explain shortly what does it mean and add references
Authors: The suggested explanation was included in chapter 3.1.3.
Rev#3: Line 188: define which type of rain data is used (depth i.e. volume per unit of surface)
Authors: Done
Rev#3: Line 211: change ‘accesses’ to ‘assesses’
Authors: Done
Rev#3: Line 211: what does it mean ‘significant’? Explain better
Authors: The text was changed to give a better explanation.
Rev#3: Lines 257-260: This situation is not clear!
Authors: The text together with the Figure clarify this paragraph.
Rev#3: Figs2,3,4: The month's name must be in English
Even though I am not a native English speaker, I believe some small revisions are necessary.
Authors: Done
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses a topic of great importance today, especially in terms of sustainability and resilience in built environments.
For publication, the article requires some revisions. For example, the names of the industry appear in some points with the first letters lowercase (is the case of "antenna" in the title and "advanced" in the legend of Figure 1), and should be harmonized as shown in line 16.
In general, it is recommended a review of the text and English language.
Reading the text raises some questions. For example, from lines 122 and 123 it can be concluded that the balance is based on daily values, which raises the following question: Are the values provided by SNIRH – Portugal daily? Otherwise, how is the conversion or decomposition of monthly to daily values carried out? How do the authors justify the use of daily values, knowing that the deviations from the average are much higher than those observed in relation to monthly values, for example?
Formulas must be numbered sequentially. In the case of the formula in line 187 and observing EN 16941-1, it appears that the filtration coefficient is not considered. Authors must justify the absence of this coefficient.
Knowing that the highest cost component in RWHS are the tanks, it can be seen in line 289 that, in this case, the volume of the tank seems to have little influence on the final cost (the budget varies little, considering that the volume admitted can double). Can the authors clarify this aspect?
Author Response
Reviewer #4
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by reviewer #4, that were very relevant and considered in the revision of our article. Responses are presented below.
Rev#4: For publication, the article requires some revisions. For example, the names of the industry appear in some points with the first letters lowercase (is the case of "antenna" in the title and "advanced" in the legend of Figure 1), and should be harmonized as shown in line 16.
Authors: The article was revised and the names were harmonized, as suggested.
Rev#4: In general, it is recommended a review of the text and English language.
Authors: We made a general review of the paper with significant improvements on the English language.
Rev#4: Reading the text raises some questions. For example, from lines 122 and 123 it can be concluded that the balance is based on daily values, which raises the following question: Are the values provided by SNIRH – Portugal daily? Otherwise, how is the conversion or decomposition of monthly to daily values carried out? How do the authors justify the use of daily values, knowing that the deviations from the average are much higher than those observed in relation to monthly values, for example?
Authors: Yes, the National System of Water Resources Monitoring (SNIRH) provides daily precipitation values registered by meteorological stations placed across the country. That was the type of information downloaded from their platform and used in SAPRA.
The daily time step is ideal in terms of program processing time and realism in modeling. Essentially, to obtain a realistic variation of the water inputs and outputs of the reservoir, the ideal would be simulating with hourly time step, but when doing it with 10 years (recommended period for RWHS sizing) the program becomes unfeasible due to the time needed for processing. On the other hand, modelling with monthly data admits average daily volumes that end up hiding variations in rainfall and non-potable demand, making the results too optimistic and unrealistic.
Therefore, the daily time passage turns out to be the ideal in terms of the program's operation, still achieving a good level of approximation to reality considering rainier days, days with more water consumption and the opposites. It is also the time step recommended in the Portuguese technical specification used for this study (ANQIP 2002) and also in the European Standard EN 16941-1 which states that “a detailed approach for large and complex projects and/or projects with irregular demand and yield based on a daily time step”
Rev#4: Formulas must be numbered sequentially. In the case of the formula in line 187 and observing EN 16941-1, it appears that the filtration coefficient is not considered. Authors must justify the absence of this coefficient.
Authors: In the general revision we made to the paper, the figures and equation numbering was checked and corrected. Also, the justification regarding the filtration coefficient has been included in sub-chapter 3.1.2. Essentially, the hydraulic efficiency of the filtration was considered to be around 100%, because the water wasted in washing the filters will be quite small considering the high volume of rainwater collected in building with such a harvesting area. Although it may not be exactly what is recommended by EN 16941-1 (which was not the document used in the design, once it was followed the national technical specification, whose method is similar to the one provided by the standard), the runoff coefficient considered (0.8) was also lower than that recommended by the standard (0.9), which ends up compensating. In other words, the results obtained with C=0.8 and ηf =1.0 (used in the study) are similar when considering 0.9 in both parameters as provided for in the standard.
Rev#4: Knowing that the highest cost component in RWHS are the tanks, it can be seen in line 289 that, in this case, the volume of the tank seems to have little influence on the final cost (the budget varies little, considering that the volume admitted can double). Can the authors clarify this aspect?
Authors: In line 289, the variation between 90 and 95 m€ refers to the construction of a system that includes a reservoir with a volume between 300 and 330 m3, as can be seen in table 1 (the study recommends rejecting the hypothesis of 160 m3 for the explained reasons). It should be noted, however, that the costs presented include all the materials, equipment and works necessary for its operation. In this way, it is expected that a difference between building a system with 300 or with 330 m3 of reserve will result in the indicated variation. The reservoir is, in fact, the most expensive component of the system and this is clearly visible in table 1: the difference between building one with 330 m3 and one with about half (160 m3) results in a difference of about 15000€, taking into account that all the other components are practically the same.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, rainwater harvesting systems (RWHSs) are being proposed as an innovative and sustainable solution to utilize rainwater in industrial facilities as a water supply. The manuscript presents a case study conducted at an industrial facility to evaluate the performance and cost efficiency of RWHSs. After studying the manuscript and the related references the following comments are stated:
The abstract is not clearly presenting the findings of the case study. Consider including a sentence to present factual findings.
In the abstract, the statement providing the author’s opinion on 30% water savings being relevant requires an explanation of why this is being considered relevant. Please consider elaborating more on this or removing”, which is very relevant” from the sentence.
Page 1 Line 1: The statement on increasing surface and groundwater extraction rates causing an increased demand for water requires a source. Additionally, the sentence sounds vague while suggesting some changes must be done to increase the efficiency of water consumption. Please add relevant references to this statement and revise the sample by providing examples of what type of changes would be needed for efficient water consumption.
Page 2 Line 35: The sentence states that RWHSs were studied by quite a few international studies but does not reference these studies. Consider citing these studies in this sentence and provide why the presented case study has a novel approach.
Page 4 Line 18: Please consider turning the bullet points into a table for parameters considered in the resulting data for clarity.
Have you considered utilizing rain data for an extensive period of more than 10 years?
Page 5 Lines 10 and 18: Please add units for each parameter of the equations.
Consider separating sub-figures as Figure 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d).
Please confirm if SAPRA is trademarked. If yes, please add TM superscript when mentioning SAPRA in the manuscript.
Page 2 Line 14: This sentence does not read well. Consider revising the sentence by elaborating more on why water conservation efforts are receiving attention.
Page 8 Line 1: The results section initially recommends the tank volume between 160 and 330 m3, then states 160 m3 should not be considered. This statement sounds contradicting, please revise it for clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language in the manuscript requires major revisions. There are several grammar mistakes, missing prepositions, and improper use of conjunctive adverbs. Please revise the paper for grammar.
For example,
Page 1 Line 10: “The main goal was to understand water consumption pattern the social areas” is grammatically incorrect. Please consider revising this sentence as “water consumption patterns of the social areas”.
Page 1 Line 30: Instead of “The core benefits related with” consider using “related to”.
Page 2 Line 3: This sentence does not read well, consider revising the sentence. Suggest revising it as “Commercial RHWS generally collect large amounts of rainwater and utilize collected water in various ways.”
Page 2 Line 7: Instead of “aren’t”, please use “are not”.
Page 2 Line 16: Throughout the manuscript you are switching between “RWHS” or “RWH systems” while referring to rainwater harvesting systems. Please try to stay consistent throughout the manuscript.
Page 2 Line 27: This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Revise as “Ghisi et al., reached 12-79%......, when they investigated rainwater harvesting systems in several….”
Page 2 Line 31: Please write out abbreviations when they are first time mentioned in the manuscript (i.e. WC).
Page 3 Line 3: This sentence requires grammar revision. Consider revising as “ Its’ ” rooftop has an area of 2756 m2.”
Page 3 Line 15: “Large construction works” does not read well, consider revising as “extensive construction efforts.”
Page 4: Subtitle 3.1.2 does not read well. Please consider revising as. “Non-potable consumption of the collected water”.
Page 5 Line 27: The word “accesses” does not fit the sentence. Did you mean “assesses”?
The months presented in the x-axis of the graphs (Figures 2, 3, 4) are not in English, please revise the graphs.
Author Response
Reviewer #5
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by reviewer #5, that were very relevant and considered in the revision of our article. Responses are presented below.
Rev#5: In this paper, rainwater harvesting systems (RWHSs) are being proposed as an innovative and sustainable solution to utilize rainwater in industrial facilities as a water supply. The manuscript presents a case study conducted at an industrial facility to evaluate the performance and cost efficiency of RWHSs. After studying the manuscript and the related references the following comments are stated:
Rev#5: The abstract is not clearly presenting the findings of the case study. Consider including a sentence to present factual findings.
Authors: Done
Rev#5: In the abstract, the statement providing the author’s opinion on 30% water savings being relevant requires an explanation of why this is being considered relevant. Please consider elaborating more on this or removing”, which is very relevant” from the sentence.
Authors: Done.
Rev#5: Page 1 Line 1: The statement on increasing surface and groundwater extraction rates causing an increased demand for water requires a source. Additionally, the sentence sounds vague while suggesting some changes must be done to increase the efficiency of water consumption. Please add relevant references to this statement and revise the sample by providing examples of what type of changes would be needed for efficient water consumption.
Authors: Done.
Rev#5: Page 2 Line 35: The sentence states that RWHSs were studied by quite a few international studies but does not reference these studies. Consider citing these studies in this sentence and provide why the presented case study has a novel approach.
Authors: Done
Rev#5: Page 4 Line 18: Please consider turning the bullet points into a table for parameters considered in the resulting data for clarity.
Authors: The authors acknowledge the suggestion, however they choose to maintain the bullet points, once the information is simple.
Rev#5: Have you considered utilizing rain data for an extensive period of more than 10 years?
Authors: 10 years is the recommended period for RWHS sizing, by the National Association for Building Infrastructure Quality, and so this was the only period considered by the authors.
Rev#5: Page 5 Lines 10 and 18: Please add units for each parameter of the equations.
Authors: Done.
Rev#5: Consider separating sub-figures as Figure 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d).
Authors: Once the Figures subtitles are clear the authors choose to maintain only the Figure.
Rev#5: Please confirm if SAPRA is trademarked. If yes, please add TM superscript when mentioning SAPRA in the manuscript.
Authors: SAPRA is not yet a Trademarked program (process in progress).
Rev#5: Page 2 Line 14: This sentence does not read well. Consider revising the sentence by elaborating more on why water conservation efforts are receiving attention.
Authors: Done.
Rev#5: Page 8 Line 1: The results section initially recommends the tank volume between 160 and 330 m3, then states 160 m3 should not be considered. This statement sounds contradicting, please revise it for clarity.
Authors: As clarified in the text, the value of 160 should not be considered because it corresponds to a rather pessimistic analysis (3 driest years), therefore little water to regulate and lower annual savings.
Rev#5: Comments on the Quality of English Language:
The quality of English language in the manuscript requires major revisions. There are several grammar mistakes, missing prepositions, and improper use of conjunctive adverbs. Please revise the paper for grammar.
For example,
Page 1 Line 10: “The main goal was to understand water consumption pattern the social areas” is grammatically incorrect. Please consider revising this sentence as “water consumption patterns of the social areas”.
Page 1 Line 30: Instead of “The core benefits related with” consider using “related to”.
Page 2 Line 3: This sentence does not read well, consider revising the sentence. Suggest revising it as “Commercial RHWS generally collect large amounts of rainwater and utilize collected water in various ways.”
Page 2 Line 7: Instead of “aren’t”, please use “are not”.
Page 2 Line 16: Throughout the manuscript you are switching between “RWHS” or “RWH systems” while referring to rainwater harvesting systems. Please try to stay consistent throughout the manuscript.
Page 2 Line 27: This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Revise as “Ghisi et al., reached 12-79%......, when they investigated rainwater harvesting systems in several….”
Page 2 Line 31: Please write out abbreviations when they are first time mentioned in the manuscript (i.e. WC).
Page 3 Line 3: This sentence requires grammar revision. Consider revising as “ Its’ ” rooftop has an area of 2756 m2.”
Page 3 Line 15: “Large construction works” does not read well, consider revising as “extensive construction efforts.”
Page 4: Subtitle 3.1.2 does not read well. Please consider revising as. “Non-potable consumption of the collected water”.
Page 5 Line 27: The word “accesses” does not fit the sentence. Did you mean “assesses”?
The months presented in the x-axis of the graphs (Figures 2, 3, 4) are not in English, please revise the graphs.
Authors: We made a general review of the paper with significant improvements on the English language. All the changes proposed by the reviewer were addressed.
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have satisfactorily addressed all of my comments and concerns in the revised manuscript. The changes and additions have significantly improved the quality of the work.
Minor revision recommendation: Please check the placement of subheading 3.1.4, consider moving it to Page 7. Consider presenting Table 1 on a single page.
Author Response
Reviewer #5
Authors are thankful for the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer #5. Responses are presented below.
Rev#5: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all of my comments and concerns in the revised manuscript. The changes and additions have significantly improved the quality of the work.
Thank you.
Minor revision recommendation: Please check the placement of subheading 3.1.4, consider moving it to Page 7. Consider presenting Table 1 on a single page.
Done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
