Next Article in Journal
An Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Model Based on Extended VIKOR and MARCOS for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Organ Transplantation Networks for Healthcare Devices
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological and Social Limitations for Mexican Dry Forest Restoration: A Systematic Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Evapotranspiration Evolution Model as a Function of Meteorological Variables: A CFD Model Approach

Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 3800; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073800
by Víctor Manuel Fernández-Pacheco 1,*, Elena Antuña-Yudego 2, Juan Luis Carús-Candás 2, María José Suárez-López 1 and Eduardo Álvarez-Álvarez 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 3800; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073800
Submission received: 13 February 2022 / Revised: 15 March 2022 / Accepted: 18 March 2022 / Published: 23 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is to provide a methodology based on 3D numerical CFD model, to obtain the distribution of air temperature and humidity, radiation, and wind fluxes associated with evapotranspiration rate (ET) in large-scale outdoor spaces. However, presentation, scientific writing style and quality are very poor. The article cannot be accepted in the present form and extensive revision is required to be acceptable. Main comments are as follows:

1. Main significant results in the abstract are missing.

2. Results did not reflect the main objectives of the study as they mentioned at the end of introduction section.

3. English editing is required to improve the article and avoid several grammatical errors.

4. The boundary conditions should be described properly, especially the lower boundary (the solid limit (lines: 175-177).

5. Line 65 it should be (Figure 2a).

6. ET should be evapotranspiration rate through the text.

7. Change the unusual capital letter small, forb example Study zone, Interior domain, Interface zone, etc.

8. Line 118, define the abbreviations before use.

9. Line 171, it should be wind speed (m/s) and direction.

10. Data in Table 1 is monthly average or seasonally? please describe.

11. Lines: 208-212, more explanation is needed to make Fig. 12 understandable and clear.

12. Define the unit of ET mass fraction (Fig. 15).

13. 16 is not for ET mass fraction map only, please correct.

14. In general, more discussion is required to enhance and improve the results section.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find attached the responses in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

Please find my review of a manuscript titled "An evapotranspiration evolution model as a function of meteorological variables: a CFD model approach" by V.M. Fernández-Pacheco , E. Antuña-Yudego, J.L. Carús-Candás, M.J. Suárez-López and E. Álvarez-Álvarez submitted for consideration for possible publication in MDPI Sustainability.

This study offers an approach to developing a simplified three-dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) numerical model which allows to reduce computational resources and therefore could be applicable to describe meteorological variables over relatively large areas. The developed CFD model has been applied to a semi-arid region of Cabo de Gata in Almería (Spain) to investigate the three-dimensional evolution of meteorological parameters such as evapotranspiration, temperature, air humidity and wind velocity, and the results are presented in this manuscript.

The subject of this study is suitable for Sustainability journal. Data and methodology are robust.

Some revision is required before publishing the manuscript.

Acronym CFD should be explained, not all readers may know that CFD stands for Computational Fluid Dynamics model.

Line 65: 2a => Figure 2a.

Lines 75-76: Computer Fluid Dynamics (CFD) while earlier it was defined as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)  - Lines 24-25

Line 153 and Lines 247-248: 23, 600x24, 800 m => sq. m or  m2

Lines 169- 170: The meteorological average data for each season have been obtained from the mean values for the entire domain registered in a meteorological weather station every 30 minutes.

It appears that meteorological observations for an area of 585.28 sq km were obtained from just one station. The authors should discuss implications to verification of model's accuracy particularly taking into consideration that wind is highly variable meteorological parameter.

General comment:  as English is not the first language of the authors, I recommend using editing service for improving quality of this manuscript.

Yours faithfully,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please find attached the responses in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is Ok

Back to TopTop