Enhanced Humidification–Dehumidification (HDH) Systems for Sustainable Water Desalination
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
* Improve the introduction by adding more related studies including "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.11.069",
* Provide information on the scope of Win in equation 2.
* What's the difference between Win and W*in in equations 2 and 4.
* Quality of Figure 1 is a bit low (it seems that the figure is generated by the authors, so I suggest using a higher-resolution figure). For review paper, higher-resolution figures facilitate reader's understanding of the manuscript.
* Scientifically, it is inaccurate to connect points together in a scatter plot if the data is not continuous (refer to Figure 2).
* If a figure is obtained from another study, the figure caption should include the proper referencing.
* Provide a detailed caption for figures (include the remarks and key takeaways for each figure)
* are the Greek letter within nomenclature for exergy necessary? I couldn't find instances where these symbols are used. Please also check the rest of the table for possible symbols which are not utilized in the manuscript.
Author Response
please, refer to the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
· Write references for equations 1, 2,3 and 4
· The abstract is not clear. Objectives and aims are missing in the abstract.
· Authors must summarize results more systematically with reference to the previous studies.
Also, Conclusions are too limited to proof the significant outcome of this study.
extensive editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed paper concerns a review of recent scientific achievements focused on applying Humidification Dehumidification Systems for sustainable water desalination to water desalination, highlighting key advancements, challenges, and potential future development directions. The title is self-descriptive and represents the content of the manuscript. The abstract provides a clear view of the paper's content. The presented studies are at a high scientific level.
However, before publishing the manuscript, the following issues should be corrected or supplemented:
1. The introduction section should be extended with considerations about countries or regions that have the greatest problem with water scarcity.
2. Page 9: Please avoid such empty spaces. You should reorganize the text here or reduce the figure located on the next page to fill this gap.
3. Page 11: Please align the numbering of the equations
4. Figures 4 and 5 -The individual elements of the figures should be numbered and described - as have been described the components of systems shown in Figures 6 to 8, although these figures could be described in even more detail.
5. line 227: Please do not use such grouped citations.
6. line 875: It seems that the word "then" should be replaced by "than"
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a review study about Humidification Dehumidification (HDH) desalination process.
This paper presents a comprehensive review of HDH to produce fresh water. Although many review paper on this topics are available, the topic can be considered original and definitely relevant to the field. It is inclusive in condensing many configurations of HDH desalination methods
I have these comments:
- The significance of Equations 1 through 4 needs further explanation in the same paragraph these equations were mentioned.
- The values reported in various studies of each of the parameters of the HDH process shown by equations 1 through 4 should be shown in a graph so that their values for each parameter can be easily compared, and a justification should be given for the difference in values of the same parameter from one study to another. Either the study used different configuration or different operating conditions.
They may need to add to the conclusion numerical values of the different parameters of the process such as GOR, SEC, RR. Also the conclusion need to be made shorter.
The references are appropriate
Figures and tables are appropriate.
Author Response
Please find the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their accommodation with the reviewer's suggestions. I believe the revised manuscript could be published in this journal.
