Thermal Comfort Assessment for Simultaneous Operation of Cooling and an Energy Recovery Ventilator in a Residential Building During Summer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The simulation of a heating and cooling characteristics of an apartment was presented. Detailed maps of performance were produced to assess the thermal comfort of the building. The selected metrics were based on one reference therefore were not adequately assessed if appropriate for the assessment of thermal comfort. Detailed comments are attached and should be carefully addressed before the manuscript is further considered.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main issue addressed in the study is aimed at studying the characteristics of an energy recovery ventilation system (ERV) in residential buildings. According to the authors, the main reason was the COVID-19 pandemic, but this is incorrect, in general, the interior environment of residential premises should comply with hygienic standards and modern achievements should be aimed at achieving this goal. The authors also try to focus on the energy efficiency of this ventilation system, which, in turn, is on the current agenda.
The study is compact in content and original in its methods and means, the literature review is exhaustive, defines the approaches of previous years in solving the issues of using energy-efficient ventilation systems.
The conducted research provides practical data in the field of experimental indicators of the temperature regime and operational processes in order to create energy-efficient conditions for the use of ventilation equipment.
The conclusions reflect the results of the conducted research in this manuscript, but require additions.
The sources referred to by the authors in the research correspond to the subject, but there are outdated ones, which requires supplementing the literary review.
Tables, figures, and graphs reflect the results of the study and are readable. The research is concise and structured.
Any comments on the work:
1. Line 10 et seq. COVID-19.
2. Lines 27-29. Is COVID-19 the only reason for conducting the study, there are no others, the reasons need to be discussed.
3. Lines 337. Links should be removed from the conclusions.
4. In the results or conclusions section, it is necessary to specify the limitations of the study.
5. Expand the literature review with sources no older than 5 years.
6. Line 150. Non-existent link.
In general, the research corresponds to the subject of the journal, it is interesting and relevant for publication after minor changes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study entitled, “Thermal Comfort Assessment for Simultaneous Operation of Cooling and ERV in a Residential Building during Summer” has clearly demonstrated the application of adding an outlet vent of the ERV system to improve the energy use efficiency and the results prove that the cooling energy consumption can be reduced through the intermittent operation cooling mode of the air-conditioners by using an outlet vent in the system. Further, valuable design guidelines have been framed to improve thermal comfort. In addition, the future prospects on improved comprehension of various designs of ERV system have also been directed. . In my opinion, the manuscript has high novelty. But before the paper is considered for publication the authors must address the following inadequacies:
Abstract
Line 18, abbreviate PMV
Introduction
Following Line 79, consider adding a small description of ERV system
Line 82, abbreviate HVAC
Approximately 40 number of references in introduction seems overpowering, consider deleting the insignificant references
Abbreviate CFD
Line 109-110, revise the statement
Methodology
A short description for Table 1 and 2 can be added
Discussion
After line 278, consider more references pertaining to the context as the discussion contains inadequate references in comparison to introduction
Line 306 and 307, consider revising the reference numbering
Line 286-292, studies pertaining to temperature distributions in different rooms can be added for better comparison as done for the kitchen area
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors replied to the main comments of the review and applied a small number revisions to concerns of the review. Unfortunately, not all concerns in the originally attached pdf have been successfully addressed. The manuscript requires careful consideration and line-by-line responses to considerably improve and become a more clear body of work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We carefully addressed your points in the manuscript as much as we could. Actually, we are not able to understand clearly what you wanted. Please indicate what you want to revise clearly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all my queries satisfactorily. Therefore I recommend acceptance of this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your kind response.
Best Regards.
