Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

> The paper is well written but in a very focused area, it is not clear that this journal is the better option for this publication.

> It is not clear what the sustainability issue has been resolved, how this can be included in real environments, nor what are the big-picture improvements of such approaches.

> A better and more deep comparison with the SoA, especially presenting the main figures of merit should also be included.

 

> Finally the use and application of this technology would be very important to understand the real sustainable approach to be followed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is useful, where an along-life LED driver with the ability of power factor correction is developed. The major concerns are given below:

1. The research gap is not clearly presented in literature review, and the novelty of this work is not enough.

2. More comparisons with existing studies are required to demonstrate the improvement of proposed scheme.

3. The cited papers are too old.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

​The proposed LED driver system aims to improve power factor correction, reduce switching losses, and minimize bus voltages. It utilizes a half-bridge LLC resonant converter and two boundary-conducted boost converters, with a common inductor that allows for natural power factor correction. The system also has two identical secondary windings with a coupled inductor to power two independent LED strings. Simulation results show that the proposed driver improves overall efficiency, harmonic distortion, and power factor compared to conventional switch-mode LED drivers.

  ​This is a ​useful manuscript. However, requires major modifications as follows.   The overall writing and presentation of the paper are poor. Improving these will enhance the quality of the paper and help attract readers and citations. There are many typos even in the abstract (such aspoor performance), these should be fixed through thorough proofreading. The figure qualities are poor, these should be improved.   I suggest extending the literature review and possibly moving it to a separate section.   The design consideration section should be improved. The equations should be explained further.   The results and the figures therein should be improved/elaborated on.   I am not sure why some of the text and references are in maroon / red colour. These should be fixed.   I can understand the relevance of the work to the Sustainability journal, however, I do not see an explicit effort from the authors to write something to align it better with the journal. This is something the editors should look into.

Author Response

Dear professor, I hope you are well and doing great. I have revised the manuscript according to your insightful and precious recommendations.

kindly check the attached file

Best regards, 

Muhammad faizan 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written but in a very focused area, it is not clear that this journal is the better option for this publication.

Author Response

I hope you are well and doing great.  According to your suggestion, I fixed the spelling and typing mistakes.

All the best wishes and stay healthy,

Muhammad Faizan  

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the revised paper didn't fully answer the reviewer's questions.

Author Response

Dear professor, I hope you are well and doing great.

I have improved the manuscript according to your recommendations and suggestions.

All the best wishes and stay healthy,

Muhammad Faizan 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made effort to address my concerns.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript is much better than the old one. However, the novelty of this paper is still not enough.