Optimal Design of Air Treatment for an Adsorption Water-Harvesting System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a lot of miss information. the article says that used a software but didn't say which one. The Figures and Tables need to be improved. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing need to be revised. 

Author Response

Comments: The article presents a lot of miss information. the article says that used a software but didn't say which one. The Figures and Tables need to be improved.

Response:  

Thanks for your suggestion, we have try our best to improve the manuscript.

Actually, the software is provided by the dehumidifier manufacture, whose name is ProFlute.

Considering that its not a commercial software, to avoid business disputes, we did not list its name.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to recommend some changes in your manuscript:

1) First of all, please, use the traditional structure of scientific papers: Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions.

2) The discussion of results (as well as references used) should be extended. 

3) Conclusions should not duplicate the Abstract, please, go directly to your main achievements there. 

4) Some corrections of the text are needed: 

L. 75, in the text of Figure 1 (Working principle of the system), please add the explanation of symbols.

L. 101-103, in the graph (Figure 2), please add the symbols for dry bulb temperature (X axis) and moisture content (Y axis).  In the text of Figure 2 (Air handling process in enthalpy - humidity diagram), add descriptions of the processes 1, 2, 3,4 and 5.

In the equations 1-6, please, explain all the symbols used there, and, in the related text. For example L. 199: "The formula for calculating water production is Eq.(2)", better seems to be "Water production M is calculated in Eq. (2)". 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: First of all, please, use the traditional structure of scientific papers: Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, the structure of the manuscript has been improved in the revision.

Comments 2: The discussion of results (as well as references used) should be extended. 

Response 2: It has been improved in the revision. However, the study belongs to application research, other than theory study, the data analysis is limited. It is hardly to conclude the mechanism behind the data.  

Comments 3: Conclusions should not duplicate the Abstract, please, go directly to your main achievements there. 

Response 3: We have try our best to improve the conclusions. Actually, the target of the study is to optimize the operation parameters of the water harvesting system. The target has been achieved by computation. Therefore, the main optimized parameters were described in the manuscript. The description in conclusion is more detailed than abstract.

Comments 4: L. 75, in the text of Figure 1 (Working principle of the system), please add the explanation of symbols.

Response 4: Thanks for your kindly remind, the explanation has been added in the first paragraph in section 2.1 in the revision version.

Comments 5: L. 101-103, in the graph (Figure 2), please add the symbols for dry bulb temperature (X axis) and moisture content (Y axis).  In the text of Figure 2 (Air handling process in enthalpy - humidity diagram), add descriptions of the processes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Response 5: Symbols have been added in Figure 2.

The descriptions of each state and the processes are located in the last paragraph of section 2.1.

Figure 2 should be understood by correlating with Figure 1, since the number of each point of the two figures is in accordance.

Comments 6: In the equations 1-6, please, explain all the symbols used there, and, in the related text. For example L. 199: "The formula for calculating water production is Eq.(2)", better seems to be "Water production M is calculated in Eq. (2)".

Response 6: Thanks for the suggestion. There exists the explanation for these symbols under Eq.(6). For better understand, they have been improved in the revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted for publication a paper of high scientific and practical level corresponding to the level of the journal Sustainability. The work will undoubtedly be of great interest to readers and has good prospects for further development.

 However, the work has a significant drawback.

1. It contains only an energy analysis of the efficiency of the operating modes of the proposed technical solution. At the same time, there is a complete lack of economic analysis. A natural question arises - whether simply delivering water to dry areas is more economically profitable than the proposed energy-intensive solution. The results of the analysis may well be in favor of the author’s decision, but the work needs to be supplemented with such an analysis and a corresponding expansion of the bibliography.

2. The authors acknowledge that all work is based only on modeling the processes under study, but do not in any way indicate that the results obtained are only an intermediate stage of the study and do not indicate directions for further work on experimental research and application of the results.

 The manuscript also has a number of shortcomings in the design of the text, which reduce the clarity of the presentation of the research results.

 1. Figure 1 requires a description in the text or in the figure legend of the names and dimensions of the quantities indicated in the diagram.

 2. Formula 1 requires a description of the symbols included in it.

 3. Traditionally, only the units ºC and % are written without a space after the given value. The remaining units are usually written using a space, i.e. 75 kW rather than 75kW (line 164). In any case, uniformity in the text is required. The same remark applies to significantly different designations for degrees Celsius (for example, lines 173 and 192). Even in the same line 223 the authors do not demonstrate uniformity: 30 °C ~ 40°C. All work requires careful checking and adjustment from this point of view.

 4. Formulas 2 - 6 require a mandatory description in the text of the quantities included in them. 

5. In Fig. 9 there is no designation and dimension of the quantity on the abscissa axis. The legend in this figure must be supplemented with the designation РH.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Comments 1: It contains only an energy analysis of the efficiency of the operating modes of the proposed technical solution. At the same time, there is a complete lack of economic analysis. A natural question arises - whether simply delivering water to dry areas is more economically profitable than the proposed energy-intensive solution. The results of the analysis may well be in favor of the author’s decision, but the work needs to be supplemented with such an analysis and a corresponding expansion of the bibliography. 

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we indeed ignored the economic analysis of the system in the manuscript. In our opinion, the key points of water supply are sustainability and stable. Some areas may not suitable for water simply delivering ways such as desert and island, where there is no convenient transportation condition. As elaborated in the introduction section, scholars have conducted studies about this technology, meaning that the technology is feasible. The research objective of this study is to analysis the performance and efficiency of this system, i.e., analysis the usability of the system in various environments. Actually, the investment of the system is not so high, the main expense is the operation power fee, which can be relieved by using solar or wind electrical power. Therefore, in section 2.3.1 and 3.5, we focus on the analysis of the heating power.

Comments 2: The authors acknowledge that all work is based only on modeling the processes under study, but do not in any way indicate that the results obtained are only an intermediate stage of the study and do not indicate directions for further work on experimental research and application of the results.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion, we have emphasized this point in the conclusion section in the revision. Since the system is still in the research and experiment stage, which has not been applied in actual conditions. Due to the limitation of the laboratory condition, only its operation running power was tested, as depicted in section 2.3.1. Due to the lack of artificial chamber,  the software simulation work was firstly conducted in this stage. The test work will be conducted in different environments in the future. Actually, the system has been manfactured, as shown in the following figure:

 Comments 3: Figure 1 requires a description in the text or in the figure legend of the names and dimensions of the quantities indicated in the diagram.

Response 3: The meaning of these quantities was described in the text close to the figure. There are also explanations about these quantities in the last paragraph of section 2.1 in the revision.

Comments 4: Formula 1 requires a description of the symbols included in it.

Response 4: Sorry for our neglect. The descriptions of these symbols have been added in the text below the formula.

Comments 5: Traditionally, only the units ºC and % are written without a space after the given value. The remaining units are usually written using a space, i.e. 75 kW rather than 75kW (line 164). In any case, uniformity in the text is required. The same remark applies to significantly different designations for degrees Celsius (for example, lines 173 and 192). Even in the same line 223 the authors do not demonstrate uniformity: 30 °C ~ 40°C. All work requires careful checking and adjustment from this point of view.

Response 5: Thanks for your kindly check. The manuscript has been thoroughly checked and improved towards to this problem.

Comments 6: Formulas 2 - 6 require a mandatory description in the text of the quantities included in them. 

Response 6: The quantities of Formulas 2 – 6 are in accordance with that in Figure.1, these descriptions could be found in the last paragraph and the first paragraph in section 2.1 of the revision. In our opinion, each quantity represents one stage of air treatment. These quantities should be explained when the air handling process is introduced in the text, so that it would be easier understand for readers.

Comments 7: In Fig. 9 there is no designation and dimension of the quantity on the abscissa axis. The legend in this figure must be supplemented with the designation РH.

Response 7: Thanks for your reminder, it has been improved in the revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Still need some improvements in the discussion of the results.

The Figures need to be improve.

Example: legend the graphics by a) and b) and reference what they mean.

Figure 3. Computation results under different parameters of inlet air to evaluate the a) the water production amount, and b) efficiency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved

Author Response

Comment 1：

Still need some improvements in the discussion of the results.

The Figures need to be improve.

Example: legend the graphics by a) and b) and reference what they mean.

Figure 3. Computation results under different parameters of inlet air to evaluate the a) the water production amount, and b) efficiency.

Response 1:

Thanks for your kindly suggestions, the analysis of the results, English level, together with the legends and explanations of the figures have been added in the revision, which have been shown with yellow background.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript has been sufficiently improved

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Thanks for your approval.