Analysis and Comparison of Daylighting Technologies: Light Pipe, Optical Fiber, and Heliostat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors present a review article on daylighting technologies. I have the following comments.

1) References need to be provided for Figures (e.g., Fig. 1, 2, and so on).

2) References for Tables should be provided, sources of Table 1,2,3 are missing.

3) Authors have missed relevant papers that need to be cited in this study. Please use different databases and find relevant articles. Authors have cited few conference papers however same papers are available in journals. Please cite journal articles.

4) Authors have cited only 2 papers from this year and last year. Please cite more latest papers in this field.

5) Please add at least 3-5 Figures for each technology. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article analyzes and compares three daylighting technologies: light pipes, optical fibers, and heliostats. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript should be improved.

The introduction cited old references that included information that could be different (due to the development of technologies). E.g.: “Daylighting can reduce electrical lighting 36 consumption by about 50% to 80% [9, 10].”

Authors should be more specific when they talk about “low”, “high”, and “medium” costs.

References should be cited in the captures of the figures.

It is not clear how the efficiency (reported in Figure 3) was considered and calculated

As said, “However, due to differences in location, 499 time, and structure, daylighting systems have different daylight performances and applications.” Each case study is different and it is important to underline that many different factors can influence the efficiency of the presented systems and, so, the evaluation should be done for each specific case. It should be underlined specifically.

In Line 398 authors wrote “have a longer service life”. As well in this case, more specific data and information should be given (e.g. how many years?)

In my opinion, section 3 reports further data and information (as in section 2). It should include more comments and an analysis of the results.

It is not clear why the authors included the part dedicated to the CRI of artificial lighting sources (that it is well-known further information). This part should be better “contextualized” or summarized. The same for section “3.5 Hybrid lighting system” that are widely installed and evaluated in the last few years. Finally, the conclusion should report more specific outputs.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

I read your article with great interest; this paper provides a comparative study among three daylighting technologies.

The value of this work lies in the need of reducing electrical lighting consumption. This paper is well written, well-structured and well referenced.

How much is the effective cost of each technology, please give numbers.

The evaluation of the quality of the light for each technology need to carry out more photometric measurement (chromaticity coordinates, color temperature).

What is the apparatus used to assess the CRI?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have incorporated the corrections in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,  

We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions you provide us for revising and improving our paper and for taking a positive account of our responses. Thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript according to comments and suggestions. 
I'd like to specify the difference between "morning and morning" in the sentence in line 152.

Language is ok.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf