Impact of Wall Paint Solar Absorptance on CO₂ Emissions in Residential Buildings: A Case Study from Bangkok

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The approach of this work is good and within the interest of the field. The manuscript, "Effect of Solar Absorptance of Wall Paint on CO₂ Emission from Residential Buildings, Case Study Bangkok," addresses an important topic but requires major revisions to improve clarity, depth, and technical rigor. Below are detailed review comments for enhancement:

1. Consider revising the title to better reflect the study's focus and findings. example... "Impact of Wall Paint Solar Absorptance on CO₂ Emissions in Residential Buildings: A Case Study from Bangkok." to emphasizes both the solar absorptance aspect and its implications for CO₂ emissions.

2. The abstract needs to be revised to clearly summarize the specific objective, methodology, key findings, and broader implications. Emphasize the study’s contributions, especially any novel insights into the potential policy relevance of recommended solar absorptance levels.

3. Provide a comprehensive background on solar absorptance and solar thermal effects in buildings, incorporating studies from different global regions to offer context for your study. Consider citing the study “Solar Tilt Measurement of Array for Building Application and Error Analysis” (https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v2i4.291.g6088) as it provides foundational insights relevant to your introduction. This broader context will highlight how findings from other regions in south Asia and climates relate to Bangkok and emphasize the global relevance of your study’s focus on solar absorptance in hot urban climates.

4. Clearly define the research gap, hypothesis, research questions, and problem statement at the end of the introduction. This will frame the study’s objectives and provide a clear rationale for the methodology and results interpretation.

5. Expand the literature review beyond the three references currently cited (22, 23, 24). Three references are insufficient for a manuscript, and a more comprehensive review is necessary to contextualize the study’s contributions. Integrate relevant recent studies on solar absorptance, energy efficiency, and CO₂ reduction in buildings, especially in similar climates.

6.  Consider removing Table 1, which defines keywords, as this is generally unnecessary and adds little value for readers familiar with the subject.

7. In the methodology section, clarify the choice of building model. You mentioned that "The building model employed in this study is constructed based on a survey conducted across 25 residential homes," but it is unclear why this model was selected. Explain if other models were considered, and provide justification for the small sample size. Additionally, state why this specific model best represents typical Bangkok residential homes.

8. The methodology should explicitly mention the simulation software used, the rationale behind choosing it, boundary conditions, and solver settings. Include the physical properties of the model (e.g., wall insulation, window specifications), solar radiation data, and accuracy parameters. Methodology details such as boundary conditions and any limitations of the modeling software should be clarified to enhance reproducibility.

9. Figure 1, "The Calculation Method," appears blurred and lacks citation. Improve the clarity and quality of this figure and provide a proper citation. If the figure is adapted from other sources, cite accordingly.

10. Strengthen the transition into the results section. Avoid informal phrasing such as “In this step, the results of the operations as per the methodology in Section 2 will be presented.” Instead, use clearer language like, “The following section presents the simulation results based on the methodology outlined in Section 2.”

11. The results section is currently too brief and lacks substantial discussion. Expand the results to include a detailed breakdown of the findings, supplemented with visual aids like graphs or tables for comparison across different solar absorptance values. Provide a discussion section to interpret the results, compare them to existing literature, and highlight any novel insights.

12. Conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine the robustness of the findings. This could involve varying parameters like air conditioning usage patterns, different window-to-wall ratios, or alternative paint absorptance levels. A sensitivity analysis will strengthen the reliability of the findings and support recommendations for real-world applications.

13. Review sentence structures for clarity and fluency. For example, “These serve as stimuli for the research in this case” could be refined as “These act as motivating factors for the research in this study.”

14. In the conclusion, summarize the benefits of adopting lower solar absorptance wall paints in residential buildings and identify potential beneficiaries, such as homeowners, policymakers, and environmental agencies. Address how the research fills the identified gap, revisits the research questions, and provides practical recommendations for Thailand’s building sector.

15. Avoid using outdated references, particularly those from 2005, unless they are foundational studies. Where possible, replace them with more recent studies to ensure relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve some minor language issues. 

Author Response

We have made the revisions as attached in this response.

With respect

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, "Effect of Solar Absorptance of Wall Paint on CO2 Emission from Residential Buildings: Case Study in Bangkok," makes a valuable contribution to understanding how wall paint solar absorptance impacts energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in Bangkok’s residential sector. Here are some comments for the authors to enhance the paper's clarity and impact:

 

 Major Comments:

1. Methodology Clarification:

    The study uses DOE2.1E for energy simulations, but additional details about model validation would strengthen the credibility of the results. If the model is based on specific building characteristics or prior studies, briefly referencing them could provide useful context.

    The operational schedule of the air conditioning system during different times of the day is defined, but it would be beneficial to clarify how different usage scenarios (e.g., variations in household occupancy patterns) might impact the outcomes.

 

2. Data Presentation:

    Figures 26 depicting heat transfer and energy consumption trends across solar absorption values could benefit from a more detailed discussion. Explain trends observed at specific absorption coefficients and highlight any anomalies.

    Additionally, it would be valuable to include a comparative analysis with similar studies on reflective wall coatings or cool paints in similar climates to contextualize the observed percentage reductions in energy use.

 

3. Practical Applications and Policy Implications:

    The study suggests that regulations mandating specific paint reflectance values could mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding on the feasibility of this implementation, including economic considerations or potential resistance from stakeholders, would enhance the paper’s impact for policymakers.

 

 Minor Comments:

1. Literature Review:

    Consider including more recent studies from regions with similar climates for a broader perspective on heat management via building envelopes.

  

2. Abstract and Conclusion:

    The abstract could be refined by quantifying results (e.g., stating the percentage reductions in energy use and emissions) to provide a quick snapshot of findings.

    The conclusion should emphasize the broader implications of this research and propose concrete steps for future research, particularly focusing on integrating other passive cooling strategies with highreflectance wall paints.

 

3. Formatting and Language:

    Ensure consistent terminology, especially when discussing solar absorption vs. solar reflectance. Definitions could be added to minimize confusion.

 

    Clarify any terms that might be ambiguous to an international audience (e.g., “Pacmonia color” for roof structure). 

Author Response

We have made the revisions as attached in this response.

With respect

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for revising your manuscript. However, upon review of the revised submission, it appears that several critical comments from the previous round were not fully addressed. Additionally, the manuscript requires considerable improvement in English language clarity to enhance readability and professional presentation. Below are specific points to further guide your revisions. Addressing these comprehensively will be essential for improving the manuscript's quality, clarity--

1. Please upload the revised manuscript as a Word document with tracked changes. The PDF format with tracked changes is challenging to review line-by-line and compare to the previously suggested revisions.
2. Research Context and Literature: The manuscript still lacks a thorough background on solar absorptance and thermal effects in buildings, as previously requested. Broaden the introduction with studies on solar absorptance from global regions to underscore its significance in hot urban climates, such as Bangkok. As suggested earlier, please consider including the study in the starting of the introduction section “Solar Tilt Measurement of Array for Building Application and Error Analysis” (https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v2i4.291.g6088) for added context. This broader literature will enhance your study’s global relevance and emphasize its focus on Bangkok’s climate.
3. Clarification of Studies Referenced (Line 73): The sentence “Numerous research studies have endeavored to mitigate heat gain by applying cool paint formulations [10-13]” needs clearer justification. As previously mentioned, clarify how studies from Greece, Spain, and other regions relate to Bangkok. The phrase “may also be appropriate” is ambiguous; please specify how findings on cool paints are relevant to your study's focus on Bangkok’s conditions.
4. Keywords: Revise keywords for improved relevance to the study's focus. Use terms that precisely reflect the research, such as “solar absorptance,” “cool paint,” and “building energy modeling,” instead of more general keywords.
5. Line 76 - Citation Source: The statement on the roof area’s impact on heat gain should cite widely accepted literature, such as textbooks, rather than specific studies unless these studies introduce new insights directly relevant to this concept.
6. Definition of Solar Absorptance and Reflectance (Lines 88-98): This definition section requires supporting citations from standard references or textbooks to substantiate these concepts and should be revised for clarity.
7. Literature Review (Line 113): The statement “Many studies examine emissions from energy use in buildings, mainly through process analysis [25][26][27]” lacks detail and connection to your study. Summarize the main outcomes and explain how these findings inform or relate to your research on solar absorptance in residential buildings.
8. Research Gap and Objectives (Lines 126-130): The research gap remains vague. Please revise this section to specify why existing literature does not fully address Bangkok’s urban, hot climate, and detail how your study contributes uniquely to this area. Additionally, the research hypothesis and research questions are still missing; these are essential components that need to be incorporated. Avoid informal language, such as “This research wants to compare,” and use precise academic phrasing.
9. Relevance of Literature: Ensure each reference is clearly contextualized. For example, references 22 and 23 should be rephrased to clearly show their relevance to your study, as you have done with reference literature 24. Summarize the key contributions of each work and how they inform your study.
10. Introduction Structure: The introduction remains incomplete, with missing elements such as a background, a comprehensive literature review, a clearly stated problem, a well-defined research gap, and research questions. Include these sections to provide a logical, cohesive foundation. You may try using sub headings in the literature review to touch various aspects.
11. Rephrasing in Methodology (Line 126): The phrase “a comprehensive methodology for calculating the solar radiation absorption coefficient” requires rephrasing. Avoid introducing the methodology within its own content; present each section in a structured, logical sequence.
12. Study Context Heading (Line 167): The heading “2.1 The Study Context” is vague. Choose a more technical term. Review this paragraph for potential redundancy with information covered in the introduction, as it appears repetitive.
13. Justification for Solar Radiation Figure (Line 174): Justify the statement on the impact of solar radiation with supporting evidence or explanation of how this figure directly affects building energy dynamics.
14. Building Model Visualization: Include a 2D or 3D diagram of the building model with all components labeled. Use a table to present the material properties and explain why this model was chosen over others. Discuss other models available and why this particular model is appropriate for Bangkok’s conditions.
15. Material Properties (Table 1): Confirm the source of values in Table 1 and avoid redundant descriptions between table and text. Decide whether to display this data in text or as a table, not both.
16. Table 2 Caption: The caption “Table 2 Usage patterns of building model” is unclear and should be revised for precision.
17. Reference for DOE-2.1E Validation (Section 2.4): The statement about DOE-2.1E’s extensive validation over time needs to include supporting citations. Where possible, reference available experimental studies that support DOE-2.1E’s credibility for this type of modeling.
18. Simulation and Solver Settings: Include details on simulation parameters, solver settings, and sensitivity analyses to improve transparency and reproducibility. Clearly describe any convergence criteria, time steps, or parameter ranges used in your simulations.
19. Clarity in Result Descriptions: The results section refers to “Whole year energy consumption” but lacks clarity about whether specific images or tables are being referenced. Ensure each result statement is clearly connected to relevant visuals.
20. Comparative Analysis of Findings: When comparing results with other studies, such as Khadraoui and Sriti [23] and Rosado and Levinson [24], clarify whether your findings align with expectations or reveal new insights. Provide explanations for these outcomes, including any region-specific factors that might have influenced results.
21. Discussion Section: The manuscript is missing a discussion section. This section should interpret the results, discuss limitations, and contextualize findings within the broader literature. Explain the practical impact of your findings, limitations of your approach, and offer recommendations.
22. Limitations and Benefits: Clearly state any limitations in the study, as well as the potential benefits of your research. Identify the primary beneficiaries of your findings, such as building professionals, policy-makers, or urban residents in hot climates.
23. Conclusion: In the conclusion, address the research gap, research hypothesis, and research questions initially presented. Summarize the main findings concisely, propose future research directions (e.g., testing in different climates or with varied paint materials), and highlight potential applications of your work.

 

Comments related to simulation— Incorporating these technical details and improvements would enhance the study’s rigor, improve the findings' applicability, and provide readers with deeper insights into the technical aspects of energy simulation in tropical residential buildings. See the following essential addition to your work- 

 

1. Simulation Settings and Solver Parameters: The manuscript lacks a detailed explanation of the simulation settings and solver parameters used in DOE-2.1E. For instance, provide details on convergence criteria, grid independence checks, and time step settings. This information is essential for reproducibility and for readers to assess the robustness of your model.
2. Sensitivity Analysis and Validation: Conducting sensitivity analysis on key parameters—such as the solar absorptance and thermal properties of wall paint—would improve the rigor of your findings. Discuss the variability in results based on changes in input parameters, especially since wall absorptance has a significant impact on building energy use.
3. Boundary Conditions: Clarify the boundary conditions used in the model, especially in the context of Bangkok’s climate. Explicitly stating whether seasonal variations or extreme temperature days were considered would strengthen the study’s environmental relevance.
4. Temperature Dependence and Non-linearities: Energy modeling results can be highly temperature-sensitive, particularly for wall paint absorptance. A brief analysis or discussion on the temperature dependence of absorptance or any observed non-linear effects could add depth to your findings.
5. Material Properties Source: If material properties such as density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity were sourced from specific references, this needs to be clearly cited. Alternatively, if these properties were estimated, detail the basis for these estimates and any possible impact on the model’s accuracy.
6. Error Analysis and Discrepancy Explanation: An error analysis that quantifies the discrepancy between simulation and experimental results is recommended. The abstract mentions a 5.1% discrepancy; elaborating on the sources of error (such as model assumptions, measurement limitations, or boundary condition variability) would improve transparency.
7. Impact of Ambient Conditions: Considering that greenhouse gas emissions vary with local environmental conditions, discuss any potential variations due to changes in ambient conditions like humidity or seasonal effects in Bangkok. This can highlight the limitations of the findings and suggest directions for future studies.
8. 3D Geometry and Thermal Bridging Effects: If possible, account for complex 3D geometry effects or potential thermal bridging (especially if construction materials vary in thermal properties). While your model uses simplified assumptions, a note on these complexities can address potential limitations of the current approach.
9. Justification for Building Model Choice: Describe why this particular residential building model was chosen. Compare with alternative designs or layouts to help readers understand the relevance and limitations of this specific model to other housing types in Bangkok or similar climates.
10. Dynamic Simulation Approach: Discuss whether the simulation captured transient conditions across days or simply annual averages. Transient simulations (e.g., hourly or daily cycles) may yield more precise insights on energy demand patterns and cooling load requirements.
11. Future Scenarios and Policy Implications: It would be valuable to discuss potential future scenarios, such as increased urban heat due to climate change, and how these could affect building energy demands. Suggest how your findings might support policy recommendations, such as building code updates for tropical urban regions.
12. Optimization of Absorptance: Given the results on absorptance’s impact on energy consumption, consider whether optimizing the absorptance value (such as around 50%) could yield practical energy savings without significant cost. A brief economic or cost-benefit analysis could strengthen the paper’s impact.
13. Add the governing equations applicable to the model study.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires considerable improvement in English language clarity to enhance readability and professional presentation. e.g.- Avoid informal language, such as “This research wants to compare,” and use precise academic phrasing. However, the whole manuscript requires a revision. 

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions, as detailed in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good Luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your detailed suggestions and insightful comments have been incredibly valuable in improving the quality of our work. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. Your recommendations have provided us with important perspectives that will certainly enhance the clarity and impact of our research.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution.

Sincerely,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the improvement in your article. However, please check the review comments properly- You did not cover the suggestions related to the simulation. I am providing again--

 

Comments related to simulation— Incorporating these technical details and improvements would enhance the study’s rigor, improve the findings' applicability, and provide readers with deeper insights into the technical aspects of energy simulation in tropical residential buildings. See the following essential addition to your work- 

 

1. Simulation Settings and Solver Parameters: The manuscript lacks a detailed explanation of the simulation settings and solver parameters used in DOE-2.1E. For instance, provide details on convergence criteria, grid independence checks, and time step settings. This information is essential for reproducibility and for readers to assess the robustness of your model.
2. Sensitivity Analysis and Validation: Conducting sensitivity analysis on key parameters—such as the solar absorptance and thermal properties of wall paint—would improve the rigor of your findings. Discuss the variability in results based on changes in input parameters, especially since wall absorptance has a significant impact on building energy use.
3. Boundary Conditions: Clarify the boundary conditions used in the model, especially in the context of Bangkok’s climate. Explicitly stating whether seasonal variations or extreme temperature days were considered would strengthen the study’s environmental relevance.
4. Temperature Dependence and Non-linearities: Energy modeling results can be highly temperature-sensitive, particularly for wall paint absorptance. A brief analysis or discussion on the temperature dependence of absorptance or any observed non-linear effects could add depth to your findings.
5. Material Properties Source: If material properties such as density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity were sourced from specific references, this needs to be clearly cited. Alternatively, if these properties were estimated, detail the basis for these estimates and any possible impact on the model’s accuracy.
6. Error Analysis and Discrepancy Explanation: An error analysis that quantifies the discrepancy between simulation and experimental results is recommended. The abstract mentions a 5.1% discrepancy; elaborating on the sources of error (such as model assumptions, measurement limitations, or boundary condition variability) would improve transparency.
7. Impact of Ambient Conditions: Considering that greenhouse gas emissions vary with local environmental conditions, discuss any potential variations due to changes in ambient conditions like humidity or seasonal effects in Bangkok. This can highlight the limitations of the findings and suggest directions for future studies.
8. 3D Geometry and Thermal Bridging Effects: If possible, account for complex 3D geometry effects or potential thermal bridging (especially if construction materials vary in thermal properties). While your model uses simplified assumptions, a note on these complexities can address potential limitations of the current approach.
9. Justification for Building Model Choice: Describe why this particular residential building model was chosen. Compare with alternative designs or layouts to help readers understand the relevance and limitations of this specific model to other housing types in Bangkok or similar climates.
10. Dynamic Simulation Approach: Discuss whether the simulation captured transient conditions across days or simply annual averages. Transient simulations (e.g., hourly or daily cycles) may yield more precise insights on energy demand patterns and cooling load requirements.
11. Future Scenarios and Policy Implications: It would be valuable to discuss potential future scenarios, such as increased urban heat due to climate change, and how these could affect building energy demands. Suggest how your findings might support policy recommendations, such as building code updates for tropical urban regions.
12. Optimization of Absorptance: Given the results on absorptance’s impact on energy consumption, consider whether optimizing the absorptance value (such as around 50%) could yield practical energy savings without significant cost. A brief economic or cost-benefit analysis could strengthen the paper’s impact.
13. Add the governing equations applicable to the model study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammatical and Punctuation issues

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files. 

We appreciate your perspective. However, the purpose of this study is to explore and provide insights into the selection of building materials. The simulation is utilized primarily as a tool for comparison and identifying results, rather than focusing on the technical details of simulation methods. As architects, our aim is to create a practical and accessible information for decision-making rather than delve into engineering complexities. We believe the simulation details provided are sufficient for replicating the tests.

Comments 1: [1. Simulation Settings and Solver Parameters: The manuscript lacks a detailed explanation of the simulation settings and solver parameters used in DOE-2.1E. For instance, provide details on convergence criteria, grid independence checks, and time step settings. This information is essential for reproducibility and for readers to assess the robustness of your model..]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have add more details about using DOE2 in simulation on page 10 for more understanding. While specific simulation settings such as convergence criteria and time step details were not included, DOE-2.1E’s default parameters were used as these have been extensively validated in previous studies [39]. The focus of this study is on comparing the relative impact of solar absorptance values rather than on the solver’s technical parameters.

Comments 2: [2. Sensitivity Analysis and Validation: Conducting sensitivity analysis on key parameters—such as the solar absorptance and thermal properties of wall paint—would improve the rigor of your findings. Discuss the variability in results based on changes in input parameters, especially since wall absorptance has a significant impact on building energy use.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Our results already show energy consumption variation based on solar absorptance (10%-90%) on Figure 10, page 15 and Table 5, page 17. The analysis of solar absorptance values from 10% to 90% effectively serves as a sensitivity analysis, demonstrating how changes in this parameter impact cooling loads and energy consumption.

Comments 3: [3. Boundary Conditions: Clarify the boundary conditions used in the model, especially in the context of Bangkok’s climate. Explicitly stating whether seasonal variations or extreme temperature days were considered would strengthen the study’s environmental relevance.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We mention Bangkok’s climate data (temperature, relative humidity, etc.) on Line 180. Boundary conditions in the DOE-2.1E model were defined using Bangkok-specific hourly weather data, including temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed, sourced from the Meteorological Department of Thailand. These inputs ensured the simulation reflected local environmental conditions accurately.

Comments 4: [4. Temperature Dependence and Non-linearities: Energy modeling results can be highly temperature-sensitive, particularly for wall paint absorptance. A brief analysis or discussion on the temperature dependence of absorptance or any observed non-linear effects could add depth to your findings]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the manuscript did not explicitly address temperature dependence and non-linearities. The results of this study demonstrate a linear relationship between solar absorptance values (10% to 90%) and energy consumption, as illustrated in Figure 10. Within this range, changes in solar absorptance are directly correlated with cooling loads and annual energy consumption, with minimal evidence of non-linear effects. We chose not to delve deeply into engineering details, as our primary aim is to present the results in a way that is accessible and practical for readers, particularly architects and practitioners, to apply in their decision-making process. These findings underscore the practical significance of selecting appropriate solar absorptance values to enhance building energy performance in Bangkok's hot-humid climate.

Comments 5: [5. Material Properties Source: If material properties such as density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity were sourced from specific references, this needs to be clearly cited. Alternatively, if these properties were estimated, detail the basis for these estimates and any possible impact on the model’s accuracy.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have cited the Energy Conservation Promotion Act of Thailand as the source for the material properties listed in Table 1. This regulation serves as the standard for material properties used in energy calculations for all buildings in Thailand, ensuring consistency and compliance with local guidelines.

Comments 6: [6. Error Analysis and Discrepancy Explanation: An error analysis that quantifies the discrepancy between simulation and experimental results is recommended. The abstract mentions a 5.1% discrepancy; elaborating on the sources of error (such as model assumptions, measurement limitations, or boundary condition variability) would improve transparency.]

Response 6: Thank you for your observation. We believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the mention of a 5.1% discrepancy in the abstract, as this value was not included in the text. However, to ensure accuracy, we have adjusted the abstract to better align with the results presented in the manuscript.

Comments 7: [7. Impact of Ambient Conditions: Considering that greenhouse gas emissions vary with local environmental conditions, discuss any potential variations due to changes in ambient conditions like humidity or seasonal effects in Bangkok. This can highlight the limitations of the findings and suggest directions for future studies.] 

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. Variations due to ambient conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and solar radiation, were included in the weather file sourced from the Meteorological Department of Thailand. These variations are considered by DOE-2 through the default parameters and input weather data, which reflect local environmental conditions throughout the simulation period.

Comments 8: [8. 3D Geometry and Thermal Bridging Effects: If possible, account for complex 3D geometry effects or potential thermal bridging (especially if construction materials vary in thermal properties). While your model uses simplified assumptions, a note on these complexities can address potential limitations of the current approach.] 

Response 8: Thank you for your insightful comment. We would like to clarify that thermal bridge effects were not included in this study, as the primary focus was on the impact of wall paint solar absorptance on energy consumption and emissions. The building model used in this simulation is based on DOE-2's default parameters, which do not inherently account for thermal bridging effects.

Comments 9: [9. Justification for Building Model Choice: Describe why this particular residential building model was chosen. Compare with alternative designs or layouts to help readers understand the relevance and limitations of this specific model to other housing types in Bangkok or similar climates.] 

Response 9: Thank you for your insightful comment. We already have discussed it in Line 205-213..

Comments 10: [10. Dynamic Simulation Approach: Discuss whether the simulation captured transient conditions across days or simply annual averages. Transient simulations (e.g., hourly or daily cycles) may yield more precise insights on energy demand patterns and cooling load requirements.] 

Response 10: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have added more details regarding the use of DOE-2 in the simulation on page 10. The calculations are based on an hourly cycle, and we have ordered the Load report to provide monthly summations.

Comments 11: [11. Future Scenarios and Policy Implications: It would be valuable to discuss potential future scenarios, such as increased urban heat due to climate change, and how these could affect building energy demands. Suggest how your findings might support policy recommendations, such as building code updates for tropical urban regions.] 

 Response 11: Thank you for your insightful comment. We already have discussed it in Line 393-421.

Comments 12: [12. Optimization of Absorptance: Given the results on absorptance’s impact on energy consumption, consider whether optimizing the absorptance value (such as around 50%) could yield practical energy savings without significant cost. A brief economic or cost-benefit analysis could strengthen the paper’s impact]

 Response 12: Thank you for your insightful comment. We already have discussed it in Line 393-400.

Comments 13: [13. Add the governing equations applicable to the model study.]

Response 13: Thank you for your valuable comment. We appreciate your perspective. However, the purpose of this study is to explore and provide insights into the selection of building materials. The simulation is utilized primarily as a tool for comparison and identifying results, rather than focusing on the technical details of simulation methods. As architects, our aim is to provide practical and accessible information for decision-making, rather than delve into engineering complexities. We intentionally refrained from including detailed governing equations in the manuscript to maintain this focus. We believe the simulation details provided are sufficient for replicating the tests and understanding the implications of the findings

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf