Cool Surface Strategies with an Emphasis on the Materials Dimension: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a well-written article providing a comprehensive review of the research conducted on materials used in cool surfaces. Here are a few comments on the article:
- Some of the references have been repeated. For example, the research summary of reference [45] in line 100 is repeated in line 558. This can be avoided. Focus the introduction on UHI and cool surface, and if possible, provide some graphs showing the UHI effect in urban areas and how cool surfaces reduce this effect. In the introduction, you can talk about the different materials used in the cool surface but summarize the research results in section 3.3, which is dedicated to this topic. Otherwise, it becomes repetitive.
- In Section 3.3, if some key data could be presented in graphs, that would hold the reader’s attention; otherwise, it looks like a reading exercise. For example, under section 3.3.1 Pigments, there are studies related to pigments in cool roof coatings. Please check whether the critical data from these studies could be presented in graphical format.
- In section 3.3, there is a table under each material category listing the important publications. All these publications are again listed in the “References.” To make this table look different from the “References” section, please add a new column to this table, for example, “Remarks,” and highlight the key finding from this study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable comments, they helped us to better address the review and have an expertise point of view. Would you please find below the detailed responses.
Point 1: Some of the references have been repeated. For example, the research summary of reference [45] in line 100 is repeated in line 558. This can be avoided. Focus the introduction on UHI and cool surface, and if possible, provide some graphs showing the UHI effect in urban areas and how cool surfaces reduce this effect. In the introduction, you can talk about the different materials used in the cool surface but summarize the research results in section 3.3, which is dedicated to this topic. Otherwise, it becomes repetitive.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment, indeed some results and references were repeated, we fixed this by making sure that the introduction containes a broad view of cool surfaces and keep the summarise for the results section. Also a graph was added in the introduction section presenting effect relation between the UHI and cool surfaces.
Point 2: In Section 3.3, if some key data could be presented in graphs, that would hold the reader’s attention; otherwise, it looks like a reading exercise. For example, under section 3.3.1 Pigments, there are studies related to pigments in cool roof coatings. Please check whether the critical data from these studies could be presented in graphical format.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, the graphical format ancourages and facilitates the reading, but we could not present the data in this format, the review presents different findings in the section 3.3 that are better presented in paragraphs to maintain the clarity and sequence of results.
Point 3: In section 3.3, there is a table under each material category listing the important publications. All these publications are again listed in the “References.” To make this table look different from the “References” section, please add a new column to this table, for example, “Remarks,” and highlight the key finding from this study.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment, the tables in section 3.3 presents the publications evaluated in groups, and give the reader a concentrated information for each material category based publications, indeed, an other column with key finding is a good addition but the tables are already taking a great space and the findings are stated in the sections above the tables.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review was conducted from the perspective of materials for the application in urban heat mitigation. While the content is quite extensive, a large part of it focused on statistics of publications, instead of focusing on the discussion of scientific advances and findings. I have some comments for the authors to improve their manuscript before its publication in applied sciences.
- Please reduce information and statistics of publications on the topic. The breakdowns of publications do not bring too much scientific insight into the topic. For example, Fig.3 and Table.1 could be removed.
- The way that the authors want to demonstrate science mapping is interesting. However, the results might depend too much on keywords of those publications, rather than from mechanisms, findings, etc.
- Several tables do not present too much information in addition to their references. In this case, I don’t see the value to present them in tables again.
- To my knowledge, some recent publications closely related to you work were missing in the review. For example, a recent paper titled “Advancement in Urban Climate Modelling at Local Scale: Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Building Cooling Demand” and another review titled “Urban Heat Island and Its Interaction with Heatwaves: A Review of Studies on Mesoscale” discussed influence of porous evaporative surface and also the use of cool surface for urban heat mitigation.
- The title of the manuscript should be modified to better reflect the scope and nature of this review. Probably “Cool surfaces strategies emphasized on materials dimension: A review of recent publications” would be a good fit.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear reviewer, thank you for your constructive and valuable comments, they helped us to better address the review and have an expertise point of view. Would you please find below the detailed responses.
Point 1: Please reduce information and statistics of publications on the topic. The breakdowns of publications do not bring too much scientific insight into the topic. For example, Fig.3 and Table.1 could be removed.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment, the Fig.3 and Table 1 were removed to reduce information and statistics of publications on the topic.
Point 2: The way that the authors want to demonstrate science mapping is interesting. However, the results might depend too much on keywords of those publications, rather than from mechanisms, findings, etc.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment, indeed, the science mapping tool SciMAT used in this review depends at early stage on the keywords as an important factor for the data collection.
Point 3: Several tables do not present too much information in addition to their references. In this case, I don’t see the value to present them in tables again.
Response 3: The tables in section 3.3 presents the publications evaluated in groups, and will give the reader a concentrated information for each material category based publications.
Point 4: To my knowledge, some recent publications closely related to you work were missing in the review. For example, a recent paper titled “Advancement in Urban Climate Modelling at Local Scale: Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Building Cooling Demand” and another review titled “Urban Heat Island and Its Interaction with Heatwaves: A Review of Studies on Mesoscale” discussed influence of porous evaporative surface and also the use of cool surface for urban heat mitigation.
Response 4: Thank you for suggesting these publications, indeed, they are very valuable in terms of approaching UHI at a mesoscale and local scale, the first one focused on simulations and coupling models to study the urban climate, and as a case study, vegetation and artificial wetting were assessed, these two strategies are not included in cool surfaces. The second paper does not present a specifique materials results for cool surfaces. Both publications are very interesting for our next planned paper for a case study, and will afford a valuable source and foundation for approching locale climate and building energy.
Point 5: The title of the manuscript should be modified to better reflect the scope and nature of this review. Probably “Cool surfaces strategies emphasized on materials dimension: A review of recent publications” would be a good fit.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, I think that “recent publication” will not be suitable for the review since the publications studied were from 1995 to 2021.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments have been addressed successfully. The present form is accepted for the publicaiton in Applied Sciences.
