Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings for the Aging of Red Wine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I really appreciate your work and want to congratulate you for the research conducted. I have a few minor recommendations: 

•        A brief presentation of the research methodology must be included in the abstract.
•         The conclusions must present the purpose of the research, to present briefly the methodology used, the main results obtained and future research directions.
•         Maybe there are some limits of the research that is recommended to be specified
• Authors should revise the references list according to the guidelines for authors 

Author Response

We appreciate your recommendations that have been included in the reviewed version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It was a very interesting study, clearly outlined and discussed. But for those of us with no background in wine-making, it would have been very helpful to have a short discussion about optimum temperature and humidity for wine production - perhaps in the introduction - but certainly before we get to all the test results, as the numbers are hard to assess without a context to frame them in. You do provide this on lines 280-288, but earlier would be better for the reader.

Figure 3 does not really help me understand the work flow as the images are too small to understand what they represent. A more schematic diagram could be more informative? Or a simple description of the steps in words or a table?

There are a number of places in the text where I was unclear about what you were saying - I have left highlighted text and comments in the attached PDF for you. For instance, diagrams of where the sensors were placed in each type might clarify the text [lines 166-172].

Your discussion of the correlation between construction cost and indoor environment achieved by each type is the least developed part of the paper, yet it is central to the contribution to the field you are making. The implication in the abstract and the conclusions seems to suggest that the underground solution is best despite significantly higher costs. This is contradicted by statements made on lines 371-74, where you make the case for the buried construction type. I think a greater degree of clarity in how 'cost effectiveness' is assessed is required here. You have very specific data for temp/RH/ and cost for each of your 12 samples. Could there not be a way to correlate that data - every % of temp damping in underground constructions will cost you xxx euros. There must be a more systematic way to assess this, rather than simply saying the underground is best despite costing significantly more, which feels unjustified. I think this part of your work needs to be considered in more detail, to make any conclusions feel substantiated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your comments that considerably improved the manuscript. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx