Experimental and Numerical Analysis of an Atmospheric Water Harvester Using a Thermoelectric Cooler
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think this article should be revised in terms of some technical detail. I will give in more detail below.
1) There are many grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the article. The article should be thoroughly reviewed, and errors should be corrected.
2) The last paragraph of the introduction section should clearly address the research gap, objective and the workflow in detail in the present article.
3) There are many similar studies in the literature regarding harvester atmospheric water using a thermoelectric cooler. What is the novelty of this study?
4) The introduction part is inadequate and should be improved. Please improve Introduction section by adding recent studies as:
https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/145457
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.045
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.09.003
https://doi.org/10.3103/S0003701X18020044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117630
5) Compare the present results with the existing literature and other methods of harvesting atmosphere water.
6) Configuration of the experimental schematic diagram should be included.
7) For Experimental works, errors analysis should be included.
8) Feasibility study and economic analysis should be included.
9) For some plots, the quality is low. Please revise to improve the readability.
10) The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications. Please clarify it. Link the results with a real application.
11) The conclusion should be written again. The conclusion should include the most important findings and outputs of your research.
12) All the symbols should be defined. Many symbols and abbreviations are not defined within the text. When using the abbreviation, it should be given in the long form in the first place used. Review the use of abbreviations.
13) Combined the result section and discussion section in one section.
14) The simulation analysis should be validated with the experimental results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Regards
Anwur
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please check the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has several problems, as follows：
1. Please describe in detail the mesh division method of the model used in the simulation calculation, the simplification of the model and the division method of the model.
2. Mark the name of each component on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
3.Please explain the selection criteria for the fin type.
4. What is the reason for the same results for 2-4 and 4-6 in Figure 6?
5. Please explain the basic setting parameters of the simulation in detail.
6.Line149：The minimum air temperature was significantly higher under numerical conditions than under experimental conditions. Please explain the reason.
7.Line162：The numerical test resulted in a higher amount of water being produced by the atmospheric water harvester compared with the experiment. Please explain the reason.
8. The experimental part lacks error analysis.
9. In the conclusion part, the experimental results should be described in the form of data, which can make readers understand the article more intuitively.
10. The author should emphasize more prominently where the innovation of this paper is different from other literature.
11. There are many errors and inconsistencies in the format of the paper. Please revise it carefully.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments and significantly improved the manuscript. The manuscript is well-written and can now be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author answered all the questions. The paper can be accepted.
