Carbon Footprint Reduction by Reclaiming Condensed Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is generally making a good contribution in the literature, and has the potential of the acceptance. I am suggesting some corrections to improve clarity as follow

- Graphs and tables are not readable and clear. Please check the font size in the graphs(L 455, L519, and L545..etc)

- Each of the procedures in the methodology has a numerical value. Please indicate the parameters in equations and discuss the max /min values in the text.

 

- In the abstract, please explain in more detail the novelty of the study. Please explain your research with numerical results in the summary and conclusion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The paper is generally making a good contribution in the literature, and has the potential of the acceptance. I am suggesting some corrections to improve clarity as follow

- Graphs and tables are not readable and clear. Please check the font size in the graphs (L 455, L519, and L545...etc)

Ans: The graphs, tables and font sizes of Figure 6~14 were enlarged

 

- Each of the procedures in the methodology has a numerical value. Please indicate the parameters in the equations and discuss the max /min values in the text.

 Ans: The manufacturer’s table was presented in Figure 10. The parameters in equations and the relationship between maximum CoC values and minimum bleed-off were explained in section 2.2.

 

- In the abstract, please explain in more detail the novelty of the study. Please explain your research with numerical results in the summary and conclusion sections.

Ans: The novelty of this study was further explained in the abstract and the explanation for the numerical results was added in the discussion and conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper, the authors present the interpretation, classification and reduction options of the carbon footprint. Very good summary. The article gives a concrete example of the use of condensed water with a novel treatment method that promotes sustainability through water and energy conservation, given the Earth's freshwater supply and the amount of fossil fuels, which must be used sparingly by all of humanity.

According to the analysis presented, it is clear that the energy performance of an existing cooling water system will be improved over the period of the study, while maintaining water quality. The calculations carried out and the evaluation of the results obtained are correct and the conclusions are valid. The organisation and structure of the article is neat and logical, the published results are well presented and analysed, and the figures are appropriate to the presentation of the subject. The article language is understandable, traceable, free of errors.

I have the following suggestions to raise the quality of the article:

The structure of the article is adequate, the calculations are presented in sufficient detail, but chapters 2.3 - 2.6 are a bit cluttered, this may be due to the length of the notations. I suggest the use of larger line spacing to make it clearer, noting that the content is perfectly fine.

In any case, I think it would be useful to include an outline of the system under study in Chapter 2, indicating the main structural units, measurement, sampling and sampling methods, and the main components of the system.

I recommend a higher resolution for Figure 12, the captions are blurred.

Author Response

The structure of the article is adequate, the calculations are presented in sufficient detail, but chapters 2.3 - 2.6 are a bit cluttered, this may be due to the length of the notations. I suggest the use of larger line spacing to make it clearer, noting that the content is perfectly fine.

Ans: Larger line spacing is adopted for the equations and calculations

 

In any case, I think it would be useful to include an outline of the system under study in Chapter 2, indicating the main structural units, measurement, sampling and sampling methods, and the main components of the system.

Ans: The schematic diagram of the system arrangement indicating the main structural units and main components were added as per Figure 5 and the system was outlined in Set-up of Chapter 2. The measurement and sampling and sampling methods were stated and interpreted for the Figures 6 to 14.

 

I recommend a higher resolution for Figure 12, the captions are blurred.

Ans: The graphs and table of Figure 12 were enlarged and improved. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an interesting topic but it has been poorly structured, having room for extensive organizational and argumentation improvements prior it to be accepted for publication.  The following review comments can be considered.

 

1. The theoretical coverage is considered poor for the specific topic examined, thus, at least 40 citations, in total, can be presented in the revised manuscript.

 

2. The Discussion section has been structured in a rather “introduction-theoretical” expressed overview, whereas a more intensified results-driven argumentation is needed. Besides, there are only two citations presented only in the first sentence, while the rest section is missing citations. Here there should be a more and extensive cross citations’ inclusion for a better validation and verification of the argumentation developed by authors.

 

3. The presentation of the study is poor and telegraphic, liking more as a technical report of calculations, rather than a robust scientific analysis. Besides, the long arrangement of Figures and Tables one after the other cannot be presented without explanation, but it is crucial authors to endorse the hidden information and the embodied meaning per Figure and per Table with an accompanying explanatory paragraph. For example the readers of the following sentence “Figure 5 to 8 provides a summary of the actual measurements obtained for the water sides.” cannot get a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of each one of the figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, since authors do not provide an explanatory paragraph per each one, but treated them as “one thing”. The same consideration runs through all Figures and Tables. For example authors authors made a hint “…..as illustrated in Figure 12” without other explanation, but Figure 12 contains actually a plentiful information of 4 columns, more than 10 lines, two pie diagrams and one subfigure, all containing vital information that is missing to be interpreted.

 

4. All Figures-graphs have to be presented in a more spacious size, since the current fonts and sizes are tiny and difficult to follow by the readers.

Author Response

 

1. The theoretical coverage is considered poor for the specific topic examined, thus, at least 40 citations, in total, can be presented in the revised manuscript.

 Ans: Total 42 citations were presented in the revised manuscript.

 

2. The Discussion section has been structured in a rather “introduction-theoretical” expressed overview, whereas a more intensified results-driven argumentation is needed.

Ans: The results-driven argumentation was added in section 4 “Discussion”

 

Besides, there are only two citations presented only in the first sentence, while the rest section is missing citations. Here there should be a more and extensive cross citations’ inclusion for a better validation and verification of the argumentation developed by authors.

 Ans: More citations were added

 

3. The presentation of the study is poor and telegraphic, liking more as a technical report of calculations, rather than a robust scientific analysis. Besides, the long arrangement of Figures and Tables one after the other cannot be presented without explanation, but it is crucial authors to endorse the hidden information and the embodied meaning per Figure and per Table with an accompanying explanatory paragraph. For example the readers of the following sentence “Figure 5 to 8 provides a summary of the actual measurements obtained for the water sides.” cannot get a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of each one of the figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, since authors do not provide an explanatory paragraph per each one, but treated them as “one thing”. The same consideration runs through all Figures and Tables. For example authors authors made a hint “…..as illustrated in Figure 12” without other explanation, but Figure 12 contains actually a plentiful information of 4 columns, more than 10 lines, two pie diagrams and one subfigure, all containing vital information that is missing to be interpreted.

 Ans: The explanation and interpretation of measurement for Figure 6~15 (previously Figure 5 to 13) were added.

 

4. All Figures-graphs have to be presented in a more spacious size, since the current fonts and sizes are tiny and difficult to follow by the readers.

Ans: Figure 6~15 (previously Figure 5 to 13) were enlarged for better reference.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been satisfactorily revised, having the review comments systematically addressed. In this respect the revised manuscript sustains novel characteristics and it can be accepted for publication at the Sustainability journal as is.

Author Response

Thanks much for your comment.  The paper is now in a good status for possible publication..