Assessment of the Use of Solar Desalination Distillers to Produce Fresh Water in Arid Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and it is adapt to this journal. The collaboration among several faculties is useful and I think that there is a great work behind the presentation of this work. However, while the presentation is nice in shape, there are few comments and/or suggestions to improve the manuscript.

--Clarify better the innovation of this work in the abstract and in the introduction. Please add to these sections more general information’s. What is the role of this topic in international context?

--Where relevant, please search references to the equations. Equations should always be accurately and clearly referenced.

--The conclusion is short. Extend the conclusion with more general usability. What are the benefits of the results in a global context? Please explain this better in the manuscript.

--Please extend the nomenclature with units.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents a techno-economical study for the use of solar desalination to produce fresh water. The study focused at several locations around the globe and issues like thermal efficiency, investment payback and CO2 production are examined. It is shown that in any case the process is economically deficient. The present work can be barely characterized as scientific since it is a feasibility study. However there is a great amount of important information here so in principle the work could be published by a journal handling issues as sustainability.

Before any final decision the manuscript should be considerably improved.

Some comments

Line 58, 126: A sentence cannot start with a reference number.

Line 61: The significance of surface hydrophobic/hydrophilic nature has to be discussed here.

The sections 2.1 and 2.2 are the heart of the work and should be attainable and reproducible by all the readers. However they are terribly written with many typos that destroy completely the model. E.g. the subscript t is wrong in equation (1); there are no units in the equations (3-11); The parameter Fan appears in three different forms in lines (192-195).

Where the values of Table 3 enters the model?

It should be stated that table 3 refers to percentage.

The above superficial treatment of the model generates questions about its validity. The authors should derive the model in a concise, clear way. It could be nice to signify the energy terms on a schematic of the device.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately the authors was too fast to make the revision. The results of this is to have a lot of typos in the equations which destroy the main part of the work.

Please see careful and correct the equation to become meaningful.

Examples: You corrected Fan but still the "a" is Greek in the equations and English in text.

-In eq. (8) the a symbol of raising in power is erroneous appearing.

-In many equation the exponents appears on the subscript instead of the main variable.

You have to correct the whole model (not only the issues I observed) presentation in order to make the work useful to the reader. Otherwise the publication has no meaning. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx