Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a basic overview of atmospheric water extraction. Its greatest contribution is in linking the potential of AWES with disaster resilience; however, this is an interesting link rather than proven conclusion for a review article. More consideration is needed as to the feasibility of installation in disaster settings, and/or the general accessibility of AWES infrastructure.

While there are not glaring spelling mistakes, many phrases are confusing, and the article as a whole needs a careful polish for English. In particular, transition words such as 'herein' are regularly used incorrectly, and verb tenses are sometimes incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. It deals with a problem of high importance and it analyses water resource resilience by proposing alternative strategies for water supply

The paper is well written and structured. Therefore I would suggest to accept the manuscript after implementing some minor revision. Below are my just few remarks and comments.

Section 2 seems to be a bit too long. In my view you should focus mostly on AWES. Of course, showing some alternatives is good, but fitting them into a small table would be fair enough. It is not necessary to describe these solutions so deeply.

You are using the notion of resilience, but you do not define it at all. As it is a very ambiguous term, you may elaborate it a bit more (just shortly: how do you understand this notion). You are also mentioning extreme weather events resilience, this issue also was widely researched (eg. doi 10.3390/su14042052 ) and you may signalize this as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article is a review of technologies and methods for extracting water from atmospheric air. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of resource conservation and sustainable development. The authors have done a significant analysis of sources, described current technical solutions, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:

1. Why is the subject of the article specified specifically on disasters? The value of water is relevant in other situations as well.

2.  Authors should avoid simultaneous citation of several sources (for example, [15–21]) - it is better to cite them sequentially and specifically. Authors should specify "ick factor" in line 179. What conclusions can be drawn from the Figure 2? Tables S1 - S3 and Figures S1 - S2, as well as the sources used in the supplementary file, should be added directly to the text of the article or an appendix to it. In line 280, the same values ​​"ηace, ηace, ηace" are indicated - should be corrected for different indicators. The authors mention "The glass-covered greenhouse", which refers to a distillation system, not an extraction system.

3. Little attention is paid by the authors to the use of solar photovoltaic modules in the electricity supply of processes for extracting water from air, using various technologies, where solar modules with an extended service life and a polysiloxane compound are most relevant in desert conditions (for example, DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE.2020040106 ; doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/317/1/012002), which do not degrade in such difficult climatic conditions and are tolerant to cyclical temperature fluctuations.

4. Is any additional purification of rainwater necessary before it can be used by humans?

5. How does the humidity and quality of atmospheric air change after the active extraction of water from it?

6. It is advisable for the authors to add one more "exotic" method of obtaining water - activation of rains with the help of various technical solutions, which has its own advantages and disadvantages.

In general, it can be concluded that the article under consideration is of a review nature and leaves a positive impression. After taking into account these comments and the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf