Material Sustainability of Low-Energy Housing Electric Components: A Systematic Literature Review and Outlook^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed this manuscript entitled "Systematic literature review of low energy housing electric component material sustainability". This work aims to summarize the low energy housing electric component material sustainability. My recommendation is publishable after the following comments and concerns are addressed:

1) Please include keyword "perspectives" (or "outlook" or "future directions" or a similar phrase) in the paper title.

2) To make the paper be more forward-looking, please outline the authors' detailed views on the key challenges, existing research gaps and future research directions etc., including also potential future developments in research methodologies (both experimental and modelling) that are important to future development of the related field. This section brings critical benefits to the readership.

3) The current Introduction is weak. Please boost your Introduction.

4) Section 2 Objective should be merged into the introduction.

5) Conclusion has been explained well, but it can be briefed up. Please put enough emphasis on the points of novelty of the proposed study in your Conclusions.

6) The authors should improve the Figure. All the legends must be corrected and the resolution should be ensured.

7) The writing and the format are not standard. Please double check and correct it according to the guideline of the host journal.

Author Response

Comment 1: Please include keyword "perspectives" (or "outlook" or "future directions" or a similar phrase) in the paper title.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. We have changed the title to “Material sustainability of low energy housing electric components: a systematic literature review and outlook”.

 

Comment 2: To make the paper be more forward-looking, please outline the authors' detailed views on the key challenges, existing research gaps and future research directions etc., including also potential future developments in research methodologies (both experimental and modelling) that are important to future development of the related field. This section brings critical benefits to the readership.

Response 2: We agree with this comment. We have modified point “4 Discussion” to clarify and detail authors‘ views.

 

Comment 3: The current Introduction is weak. Please boost your Introduction.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have changed the introduction in order to be more motivating.

 

Comment 4: Section 2 Objective should be merged into the introduction.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. We have changed the introduction to include objectives.

 

Comment 5: Conclusion has been explained well, but it can be briefed up. Please put enough emphasis on the points of novelty of the proposed study in your Conclusions.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. We have changed the conclusion to address novel learnings from our study.

 

Comment 6: The authors should improve the Figure. All the legends must be corrected and the resolution should be ensured.

Response 6: We agree with this comment. Images have been edited to increase resolution and readability

 

Comment 7: The writing and the format are not standard. Please double check and correct it according to the guideline of the host journal.

Response 7: We agree with this comment. We corrected formatting issues in figures (font size, colouring), tables column names and references

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s comments on sustainability-3337130

1. Specific examples should be provided to illustrate the process shown in Figure 1.

2. The quantitative parameters should be explained in detail.

3. In Section 4.2.3 Lithium-Ion Battery, the significant variables such as temperature, Full Equivalent Cycle (FEC), State of Charge (SOC), C-rates, Depth of Discharge or Cycle (DOD or DOC) should be analyzed in detail.

4. In Section 5.1 Method limitations, the trends and advantages of quantitative analysis should be discussed.

5. In Section 6 Conclusions, the observation results of quantitative analysis should be summarized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comment 1: Specific examples should be provided to illustrate the process shown in Figure 1.

Response 1: Is this referring to the process shown Figure 2? If so, examples of specific searches and results given in point “2.2 Text processing”

 

Comment 2: The quantitative parameters should be explained in detail.

Response 2: We agree with this comment. We have added them in “2.3. Quantitative parameters”.

 

Comment 3: In Section 4.2.3 Lithium-Ion Battery, the significant variables such as temperature, Full Equivalent Cycle (FEC), State of Charge (SOC), C-rates, Depth of Discharge or Cycle (DOD or DOC) should be analyzed in detail.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have added some clarification in the last paragraph of “3.2.3. Lithium-Ion Battery”.

 

Comment 4: In Section 5.1 Method limitations, the trends and advantages of quantitative analysis should be discussed.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. We have added some clarification in 4.2 and 4.3 so that it is clearer that adding more literature sources and more words might change the results. We commented also on the trends of quantitative analysis (context word search e.g.). And we added advantages such as avoiding bias based on personal network (only read known authors) or impact numbers (only read most read) and being able to filter a large number of publications prior to selecting the ones to be read.

 

Comment 5: In Section 6 Conclusions, the observation results of quantitative analysis should be summarized.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. We added quantitative summarizing values in the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Systematic literature review of low energy housing electric component material sustainability” presents significant gaps that compromise its scientific contribution and practical applicability. Although the topic addressed is relevant, the methodological limitations, data inconsistencies, and superficiality in certain aspects indicate that the paper requires substantial revision before being considered for publication.

The article prioritizes batteries and photovoltaic modules, while other components such as inverters and heat pumps, which play critical roles in near-zero energy building (nZEB) systems, receive less attention, creating potential gaps in the assessment. The automated methodology for textual analysis, although promising, exhibits limitations. Its inability to recognize synonyms, linguistic variations, and acronyms without manual intervention reduces the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The reliance on open-access texts excludes other important sources, which may limit the representativeness of the results.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper entitled “Systematic literature review of low energy housing electric component material sustainability” presents significant gaps that compromise its scientific contribution and practical applicability. Although the topic addressed is relevant, the methodological limitations, data inconsistencies, and superficiality in certain aspects indicate that the paper requires substantial revision before being considered for publication.

The article prioritizes batteries and photovoltaic modules, while other components such as inverters and heat pumps, which play critical roles in near-zero energy building (nZEB) systems, receive less attention, creating potential gaps in the assessment. The automated methodology for textual analysis, although promising, exhibits limitations. Its inability to recognize synonyms, linguistic variations, and acronyms without manual intervention reduces the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The reliance on open-access texts excludes other important sources, which may limit the representativeness of the results.

Response 1: Thanks for your observations and we agree with the highlighted limitations. We clarified the limitations in section 2.2 and 4.1. And we added possible further steps in the outlook (e.g. Including closed source papers). Additionally, we added clearer conclusions so that learnings from this study become more apparent. For the selection of indicators, many alternative wordings were tested but their low appearances did not affect the results. Those are commented for each figure if applies. Manual validation and intervention were needed as this is a semi-supervised process, but they were kept to the minimum so all combinations of searches would receive equal treatment. Clarification of methodology and discussions were added so it is transparent what the roles of the tool and the user are, and which implications they could have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the manuscript in it's present form

Author Response

I accept the manuscript in it's present form

 

Thanks!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors respond the reviewer's comments. However, please ensure that a clean version is needed.

Author Response

Thank, yes that version is only highlighted for editing purposes, final deliverable is a clean version

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments have been addressed. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thanks, we have reviewed phrasing to make it more clear

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have implemented revisions that enhanced the overall quality of the manuscript. However, further improvements are required to meet publication standards.

References Update: It is essential to incorporate additional references published within the last five years to ensure the manuscript reflects the most recent advancements in the field. To improve readability and accessibility, it is recommended to present the references in a tabular format. The table should highlight key details, such as the publication year, employed methodology, and main findings.

Environmental Impact Discussion: The discussion section should be expanded to address additional environmental impact parameters that have been overlooked. Specific focus should be given to operational energy efficiency, hazardous waste management, and recycling efficiency. This will provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability aspects covered in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks for your observations, we have added point 3.3 to address environmental impacts and materials and 3.4 for a literature table

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the quality of the paper. The article can be accepted.