Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Performance of Solar Hybrid Cooling Operated by Solar Compound Parabolic Collectors under Weather Conditions in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(12), 7343; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127343

by Zakariya Kaneesamkandi

and Abdul Sayeed^*

Reviewer 1:

Ryszard Zwierzchowski

Reviewer 2:

Wisam Al-Shohani

Reviewer 3:

H.M. Salman Ajmal

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Reviewer 5:

Hussein Maghrabie

Reviewer 6:

Hasan Çoban

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(12), 7343; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13127343

Submission received: 15 May 2023 / Revised: 14 June 2023 / Accepted: 17 June 2023 / Published: 20 June 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The manuscript submitted for review is a manuscript resubmitted to Applied Sciences. In the previous series of reviews, there were three rounds of them. Despite the shortening of its content by about 1/3, this manuscript can still be classified as extensive, but its current readability has improved significantly.

The current version of the reviewed manuscript is at an average level when it comes to the originality of the presented solutions and formulated final conclusions, but perhaps it will meet with the interest of readers and its results can be used in the design of commercial installations. The manuscript presents research on a hybrid solar cooling system for the Arabian Gulf region.

As already mentioned, the current readability of the resubmitted manuscript to the editor of Applied Sciences has been significantly improved, and most of the previous rounds of reviews of my detailed comments and required corrections have been taken into account by the authors. However, it is recommended to supplement the literature review with existing, latest (from 2022 and 2023) items thematically related to the author's research for the Arabian Gulf area

In its current form, the manuscript, following the introduction of proposed additions to the area of literature review, is eligible for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Professor,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our research work. Your feedback and insights were invaluable in improving our work, and I wanted to inform you that all of your comments and suggestions have been diligently addressed to the best of our knowledge.

Your expertise and attention to detail have significantly contributed to the quality and success of our work. We greatly appreciate the constructive criticism and thoughtful suggestions you provided. Your thorough review has helped us identify areas for improvement and allowed us to refine our work accordingly.

We are committed to delivering the best possible outcomes, and your feedback has played a crucial role in that process. Your comments not only helped us rectify any existing shortcomings but also provided us with valuable insights that will assist us in future endeavors.

Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for your time and effort in reviewing our article. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know. We value your input and would be more than happy to address any additional points you may have.

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I recommend that this manuscript is ACCEPTED for publication without further review.

Author Response

Thank you, professor.

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The reviewer found the idea of the submitted manuscript of the title ‘Performance of solar hybrid cooling operated by solar compound parabolic collectors under weather conditions in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ However, it is needed to be revised according to the following comments with a minor revision before the publication.

1. Authors are needed to consider the uneven writing format and writing style, For example, they have not put the spaces evenly throughout the text, ‘Saudi Arabia’ is used many times while they have already defined KSA, is it the same or two different places? If these are the same then there must be one name.

2. Authors put most of the references based on theoretical study, this must be replaced with experimental applications/studies.

3. Most of the acronyms used without defining them such as SR?

4. What is the true value of sensitivity in the Table?

5. Why did they choose a specific design of CPC collectors? It is not clear.

6. What is reference #6!

7. Journals are substandard for being used in the references, such as (IJRET). References are up to the mark.

8. Authors stated that “From the experimental results of CPC performance described in the section, the efficiency of the CPC is 0.40 with an aperture area of 9.6 m2 for the heat output of 4.72 kW.” Why only this value of the area is studied?

i have mentioned in the comment section.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors combined a solar vapor absorption refrigeration (SVAR) system with a conventional vapor compression refrigeration (VCR) system to analyze their combined performance using a compound parabolic collector (CPC). The validation of CPC using an engineering equation solver ( EES) heat output with 2.9% uncertainty. The validation of other system components is also validated with the EES and then extended to a larger capacity solar hybrid cooling system. The results of this research indicate CPC is effective in providing the required heat to SVAR throughout the year with any tracking and the integration of SVAR in series with the VCR condenser produces 83% higher COP when compared to the system having VCR integrated with the condenser of the SVAR system for Riyadh. The configuration results in 88% and 84% high values of exergy COP and efficiency respectively and increases the cooling capacity of the VCR by 68% and decreases the carbon emission by 166.4%.

This work is original, novel and important to the field. The paper could be published after major revision according to the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The present manuscript introduces an analyses of the performance of a solar vapor absorption refrigeration (SVAR) system combined with a conventional vapor compression refrigeration (VCR) system to analyze their combined performance using a compound parabolic collector (CPC). The essential comments are presented as an attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

I would like to say that the paper is very nicely formed, with regard to the scientific, as well as practical aspects. In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without serious shortcomings. NewerthIess, I am suggesting a revision, due to some issues. Please find attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you again for your support and contribution. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow from your expertise

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors seem like 'not interested in careful writing', there are still many mistakes/typos in the text. such as heading 3.3: they mentioned acceptance angle, please make the corrections.

Figure labels are not uniformly written in the whole text.

The same mistakes have repeated in the revised version.

not satisfactory

Author Response

Authors seem like 'not interested in careful writing', there are still many mistakes/typos in the text. such as heading 3.3: they mentioned acceptance angle, please make the corrections.

Sorry for such an incontinence professor, though we tried our best we apologize for any negligence you noticed. As of section 3.3, it is an acceptance angle only. The CPC has an acceptance angle denoted by, whereas resemble half acceptance angle.

Figure labels are not uniformly written in the whole text.

Done professor, we checked and modified it. Thanks

The same mistakes have been repeated in the revised version.

Respected reviewer, we are very grateful for your time and consideration. We tried our best to address our precious comments, which will indeed enhance the quality of our work. Thank you once again. If any incontinence we apologize.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Good.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors did not achieve the required modification. The authors have another chance to response to the following comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Respected reviewer, we are very grateful for your time and consideration. We tried our best to address your precious comments, which will indeed enhance the quality of our work. Thank you once again. If any inconvenience or negligence we apologize

We strongly consider your comments and time. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have fully revised their manuscript and I am now happy to accept it for publication. Only some minor changes need:
-Figure 1b, 4b is unreadable. Please update the font and size.
-Replace X with * for multiplication in all equations.+

- I suggest to the variation of weather conditionsm irradance in selected site (Ryiad) during the year should be introduced.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

The authors have fully revised their manuscript and I am now happy to accept it for publication. Only some minor changes need:
-Figure 1b, 4b is unreadable. Please update the font and size.

Yes professor, updated. Thanks.

-Replace X with * for multiplication in all equations.+

Yes professor, have replaced. Thanks for your coments.

- I suggest to the variation of weather conditions irradiance in selected sites (Ryiad) during the year should be introduced.

Respected reviewer, the above said has been included as a reference 15.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript may be published after English editing.

English editing is compulsory.

Author Response

Respected viewer, We have carefully revised the manuscript considering the English language as suggested. Please find the revised manuscript. Thank you

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper has been properly revised.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Respected viewer, We have carefully revised the manuscript considering the English language as suggested. Please find the revised manuscript. Thank you

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

References 15-17 must be according to the journal format.
There is a consistent level in the references and figures.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Respected viewer, We have carefully revised the manuscript considering the English language as suggested. Please find the revised manuscript.

The other comments addressed include

References 15-17 must be according to the journal format.

Modified.
There is a consistent level in the references and figures.

Carefully modified

Thank you

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

本文将太阳能蒸汽吸收制冷（VAR）系统与蒸汽压缩制冷（VCR）系统相结合，利用现有的VAR系统对VCR系统的冷凝器进行冷却，并对其综合性能进行评估和验证。本文是关于降低能耗的混合动力系统的一项有意义的工作。为进一步提高稿件质量，现提出以下建议：

1）混合动力系统有哪些具体优势？使用蒸汽吸收制冷（VAR）系统冷却蒸汽压缩制冷（VCR）系统的优点和缺点是什么？建议在简介部分提供更多详细信息。

2）在第 2.2 节中，温度测量以华氏度为单位，在其他部分中，温度测量以摄氏度为单位。建议使用均匀温度单位。

3）表中的某些数据缺少单位，例如表 15、17 和 26 中的温度。建议补充它们。

4）请提供图21所示拟合曲线的置信区间，以及选择线性函数来拟合它的基本原理。

5）建议在模型假设部分引用参考文献。

6）建议将本文的结果与文献结果进行比较，以证明本研究提出的混合系统的优越性能。

（七））在“基于实验设置的CPC建模”部分中，建议检查热输出理论值的计算公式。

8）检查论文中的一些语法错误。

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my work and provide valuable feedback. Your comments and suggestions were immensely helpful in improving the quality of my work.

I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully considered your feedback and have made the necessary modifications to the best of my knowledge. I have taken into account all your suggestions and have made the necessary changes to ensure that the final version of my work meets the standards required for publication. Once again, thank you for your time and valuable input. I truly appreciate your efforts in helping me improve my work

Please find the attached file.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title seems more general. Please change the title to reflect the system in this work, for example,” Performance of vapor absorption and compression refrigeration system operated by solar compound parabolic collectors under weather conditions in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”.

2. In the introduction, and after the literature review, the summary of the reviewed works should be presented. Also, explain the limitations and disadvantages of the published works and then explain how this work will overcome these limitations/disadvantages.

3. At the end of the introduction, the novelty, aims, and objectives of this work should be presented clearly.

4. Before the experimental section, the mathematical equation of the system should be presented.

5. Its not clear the aim(s) of the experimental test. Please explain that clearly in the section “EXPERIMENTAL SETUP”.

6. Merge Tables 1 and 2 into one table.

7. There is no need for figure 3. Please delete it.

8. In sub-section 1.3, please explain the “Vapor compression refrigeration system” in detail with a schematic drawing.

9. Merge tables 5 and 6 into one table.

10. Add the reflective value of the material of the concentrator.

11. It’s not to figures 5, 7, and 17, please delete them.

12. In subsection 3.2, add a flowchart describing the steps of the simulation.

13. Merge tables 11 to 14 into one table.

14. The results section is too long, please focus on the main results describing the performance of the system.

15. Overall, this manuscript seems too long and not organized well, please reduce it as minimum as possible.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

OVERVIEW

With all the respect that the work developed by the authors deserves, however, the writing of the paper does not do honor to the work done. My general criticism of the work is that it looks more like a first thesis dissertation draft, since there are around 40 figures and 30 tables, the abstract has 380 words (when the maximum allowed is 200). All this makes the task of reading very tiring, many distractors. Throughout the introduction there are several very long and repetitive paragraphs on the same topics. On the other hand, other issues are missing that should also be dealt with in the introduction. The paper, as it is now, should be rejected.

The lines that I talk are from the PDF format.

ABSTRACT

It must contain a maximum of 200 words. It has 380 words, please to restructure and cut.

Too long the length of the article (60 pages), cut. There is no Cover Letter.

Line 7 and 16. At what point does VAR become SVAR? What is the correct nomenclature?

Line 11. “In this work” (delete present).

Lines 12 and 13. The model that you use to simulate in EES, where was it obtained from?

Lines 13 and 14. Where was obtained from the model for the solar hybrid cooling system?

Line 14. The authors started to talk about EXERGY. I consider this is a vast issue to deal in another work.

Please do not use more than two significant numbers. i.e. 0.5830

Lines 15 to 23. This is a Discussion of results, does not look like part of an abstract. This paragraph is repeated in Conclusions (lines 997 to 1002).

The concept in the abstract is incomplete. The significance of the abstract is absent.

INTRODUCTION

It is too long and repetitive, some needed issues are absent.

I recommend deleting lines: 28 to 39, 44 to 63, 66 to 69, 84 and 85, 93 and 94, 107 to 111. Because they are too repetitive in the topics covered and do not point to what is relevant.

Other issues are absent.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

In line 135 you wrote “32 m2”, but in Table 1, you wrote “Length 3m, Width 2m”. This last numbers, are wrong?

Table 1 and Table 2 could be in a single table. Table 2 has a wrong Table caption, because you are talking only of a wall.

In the previous text to Figure 2, there is not a reference to this figure.

Lines 124 to 239. I can understand that the authors are describing the components used. However, the description given of each one is very vague and does not contribute much. It would be more interesting and valuable if the authors showed the schematic of the assembled design and in a single table write the trademark, source and technical characteristics of the components and take advantage of the text to describe how the whole design works, and highlight the contributions that the authors are making, since it is not distinguish what is new in this work.

Line 175. Must be “imported”, not exported.

Equations. Several variables and parameters are not defined in the text. TR or RT is not defined too.

Line 229. ¿Chapter?

Lines 234 to 236. Is it an innovation of the group?

Lines 237 to 239. This paragraph is not understandable. On the other hand, when the authors say that the solar hybrid cooling system is dynamic because solar energy varies with time during a day, you must explain what they mean by dynamic, what does that hybrid cooling system do to make it dynamic?

Line 276. CLTD method is not described how is its function and the relevance. CLTD is not defined in text the first time that is used, idem TFM. Check all the acronyms, because there are a lot that are not defined in text the first time and that are not in Nomenclature table.

In general, section of MATERIAL AND METHODS is not well structured. It is length. The authors make a lot of division. Your explanation must be like a whole, a unity of the model, because from line 124 to 578 there is not visible the innovation, the contribution, the relevant issues of your work.

Line 328 to 339. It is not relevant, because we know how the CPC works.

Line 356. You mention the reader must refer to equations 6.30 and 6.31. This is an error.

Section 2.3.1. There is nothing new.

Section 2.4.1. It looks like a textbook, that is already known.

Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 Those balances are knowing, what is the new and the relevance?

Sections 2.4.1 and 2.5 You repeat paragraphs, and these paragraphs are not relevant.

Sections 2.5.1 to 2.5. 10 What is the relevance of all this?

Line 519. ¿Chapter? (this word again?)

Line 527. “this model of configuration” (it is not understable)

Lines 543 and 544. What do you mean with “i.e.”? The assumptions are not real? Please explain, what were you based on to make those assumptions?

In general, you must explain what is the justification of the assumptions in Configurations 3 to 5. Why didn't they experiment to validate them?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Lines 581 to 592. The authors make a list with all the results to analyze. However, these are a big task. The authors should focus in some of them, the more relevant.

Line 593. “The parametric analysis of various design parameters of system components is analyzed”, By itself, this topic is a very broad topic.

Lines 598, 602. “Chapter” again.

Line 598-99. “also discusses the performance of various solar hybrid cooling configurations models”, if only are five.

Line 600-601. “performance analysis the effect of the proposed model on the environment”, what is the mean of?

Line 615. “is calculated using equation 6.14.” Where is the equation 6.14?

Page 33. There is no reference in the previous paragraph to Tables 8 and 9.

Line 629.Continuously, In different paragraphs the authors repeat this sentence “on the roof of the Mechanical Engineering Department at King Saud University, Riyadh, and KSA”. I think it is not relevant.

Section 3.2. The authors have not describing the EES Method, in consequence, that graphs (18 and 19) do not say anything. Table 10 and Figure 19 are not mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Line 630 (March 21), Line 645 (May 19). What is the real date?

Lines 646 and 647. It is not clear how was made?

Line 654. You mention Tables 21 to 24, but these are until page 47 to 49. This is not well.

Lines 658, 667. Equation 6.33, 6.32? These not exist

Tables 11 to 14. The paper contains too many Figures and Tables. Not all these are necessary, please select only the really important.

Figure 21. The big dispersion do not show a straight line.

Line 692. In what section?

Lines 700 to 702. The question is How did you analyzed all this? Please check the English congruence (plural and singular).

Line 708. “The analysis results are shown in Table 16.” This table is not an analysis of results.

Line 709. Chapter 6?

Line 715. The unit Watt must be in uppercase “484.2 w/m2”

All the Figures and Tables must be mentioned before, not after.

Lines 718 to 760. The authors should analyze the results that are not obvious, because only are describing what all people see.

Figures 24 to 28. Why the authors do not discuss why is repeated the result ( 9 and 19). Less figures and more discussion of relevant results please.

Line 764. It is not clear what the standard model is and why the comparison of this model with the experimental one is valid.

Lines 765 and 766. “FR and Ul values obtained experimentally under the section above.”How did you make?

Table 17, 18, 19, 20. A table is not an analysis results, are simply results. You are talking of parameters in various sections, what is your definition of parameter?

The data used were generated in March, May, December, July. Why do the authors use different dates?

Figure 29. You don’t describe this figure in a paragraph.

Line795and 798. All the paragraph it is not clear.

Line 798. “section 7.3” This does not exist.

Lines 810 to 811. It is not clear, the sentences are cutted and wrong.

Lines 822 and 823. States, where are there?

Line 824. “equations 6.50-6.76. Figure 67”. These number of equations DO NOT EXIST, and the Figure 67 DO NOT EXIST.

Figures 31 to 33. Authors do not make reference in a previous text.

Lines 859 and 860. “The SVAR generator temperature is directly proportional to the solar intensity. The SVAR temperature increases with an increase in solar intensity and decreases with a decrease in solar radiation.” This is obvious and repetitive.

Lines 861 and 862. Units of Watts are in Uppercase!

Figures 35 and 36. The paragraphs do not mention important analysis.

Please, in all the paper, it is necessary to homologate the nomenclature: is VAR or SVAR?.

Line 916. “Libr in the Lir-“, please correct.

Line 979 and Figure 43. Please write CO₂with uppercases.

Table 29 it is not previously mentioned.

NOMENCLATURE

Several abbreviations need to be introduced in the nomenclature.

CONCLUSIONS

Lines 993 and 994. This paragraph must not be in conclusions.

Lines 997 to 1002. At least, all this paragraph is exactly the same paragraph that is written in the Abstract (lines 14 to 19). Besides, this paragraph does not must be in Abstract nor in Conclusions, because is a Discussion of Results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewed manuscript is at a low level when it comes to the originality of the presented solutions and formulated final conclusions, but it may meet with the interest of readers and its results can be used in the design of commercial installations. The manuscript presents research on a hybrid solar cooling system for the Arabian Peninsula region.

Despite the fact that the manuscript is primarily descriptive and the mathematical models are very simple and require supplementation, it brings a number of comments to the discussion regarding the factors affecting the efficiency of hybrid cooling systems using solar energy.

However, as it stands, the manuscript is not eligible for publication in Applied Sciences and requires major changes, in particular as regards linguistic and stylistic correctness, and numerous additions and corrections need to be made to the text presented, particularly in Chapters 2, 3 and the Conclusions.

The following are selected specific comments:

- it is recommended to introduce a list of abbreviations (in addition to the existing Nomenclature), which will significantly increase the readability of the manuscript.

- in the Introduction, the literature review in the studied area concerning hybrid and polygeneration energy systems using solar energy should be expanded and updated, in particular for the Arabian Peninsula area, e.g. there are no entries: Alkasmoul F. et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125738.

- Table 4, given units "Kpa", should be "kPa".

- Chapter 1 Experimental Setup - description should be shortened and simplified.

- Chapter 2 Model development and analysis. Point 2.1. – remove from the text or shorten obvious dependencies, Point 2.2 – cite references, e.g. ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, and not describe those dependencies contained therein, i.e. you can delete lines from 285 to 326. Point 2.3.1 Performance analysis – should be significantly shortened. Point 2.4.1 Thermodynamics Analysis – no specifics, the description is general and obvious.

- Point 3.7 Modelling of solar hybrid cooling system using EES - there is no text in this point.

- Point 3.8 Comparison of models – the description is too general and there are no appropriate comments.

- Chapter Conclusion – separate conclusions of a general nature and conclusions of a specific nature, i.e. quantitative, relating to the tested hybrid cooling system.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the revisions and the manuscript, and I found that the authors not considered all my comments correctly, some of the comments were answered by the authors by “done” but there is no significant and correct change or clear argument.

Overall, there is no significant improvement in the revised version.

Author Response

Respected author,

We really value your time and comments. Please find the revised version of the manuscript. Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

OVERVIEW

I reject this second version of the paper again. More than half of the observations I made to them were not addressed, and they mostly have to do with substantive aspects, even when the cover letter says "modified". The contribution or novelty is absent in the paper. Some important contents are incomplete yet. The structure of the article is still very tiring to read, impractical, exaggerated in its number of figures, tables and pages. This reviewer strongly request that the authors undertake the task of reviewing their article in detail. This writing seems rather something taken from another place, like when line 180 reads "discussed in the chapter 3 of the result and discussions", when it is still supposed that they are just describing the experimental design. Or in lines 581 and 582 “following the geometrical and performance analysis mentioned in chapter 2”. It is necessary to eliminate so many figures and tables that are only redundant, take up space and take away the reader's concentration and interest.

However, if the authors really decide to review the article in depth, here are some formal suggestions to improve the writing. The absent substantive aspects must be reviewed with detail.

ABSTRACT

Has been improved, but the problem definition is still vague (lines 6 and 7) and the significance is absent. Define EES in the abstract.

INTRODUCTION

In all the paper, please homologate your type of English (British or American). Example: vapour or vapor, analyzes or analyses, homologate all.

Define the acronym in the text when is the first time: for example GHG and KSA (lines 21 and 22), GDP (line 30), VCR and VAR (line 62), TR (line 126).

Line 23, need to quote.

Line 31, what is “m” in “12 m/day” and in “4 m”? (ensures correct writing of units).

Figure 3, 19, 25, 27 and 29 are not cited in previous text.

Figures 11 and 12 are exactly the same with the same caption, too.

Separate the number from the unit in all the paper.

Lines 79 to 84, there is no a novelty or contribution.

Line 96. Mistake: 3 x 2 x 2 is equal to 12 m³(volume, not surface area).

Air conditioning is with lowercase (review all the paper).

Line 226 and 500. That's not how you make a quote (“Ref chapter 28 of 226 ASHRAE fundamentals handbook”). The word CHAPTER is, again, in some sections of the paper (lines 180, 582).

Line 230. Mistake: “2.2.1 2.3.1 Performance analysis of CPC”

Line 244. It is a mistake to refer to eq. 2.16 and 2.17

Line 248. Mistake? “2.3 Thermodynamic Analysis”

OTHER ERRORS:

	Says	Must say
Line 72	“kw”	“kW”
Page 4, line 98	“figure 1”	“Figure 1” (first capital letter)
Page 5, line 106	“shown in figure 2”	Delete that phrase.
Page 5, line 115	“figure 2”	“Figure 2” (first capital letter)
Page 7, Figure caption 2	“Figure 2”	“Figure 4”
Page 14, line 258	“Figure 2”	“Figure 2 (section 1.3)”
Page 26, line 497	“Figure 17”	“Figure 13”, and add the Figure because it is absent
Page 27, line 509	“Figure 13”	“Figure 15”
Page 27, line 510	“Figure 15”	“Figure 16”
Page 29, line 523	“Figure 20”	“Figure 17”
Please, pay attention in all the 40 Figures, they must be cited in its previous text, and the number corresponds with the description in text and in caption. There are so many errors when the figures are cited in the previous text.
Table 1, Table 2, Table 6, Figure 14, 22 and 24 (y axis), Table 10 and 11, Table 12	“w/mK “ (lowercase)	“W/mK “ (capital letter)
Table 6	“m²k”	“m²K”
Figure 20	“Kw”	“kW”
Line 127 and Table 3	“Kpa”	“kPa”
Line 766	“32”	“31”
Lines 894 and 895	“Kw” or “K/w”	“kW” or “K/W”

These are some of the first reviewing (versio 1 of the paper) observations that were not adequately addressed or satisfied.

ABSTRACT

Too long the length of the article (60 pages), cut. There is no Cover Letter.

Modified Length is the same.

Line 7 and 16. At what point does VAR become SVAR? What is the correct nomenclature?

Modified Confusing still, when is VAR, when SVAR?

Lines 12 and 13. The model that you use to simulate in EES, where was it obtained from?

It was designed by professor and the imported

Lines 13 and 14. Where was obtained from the model for the solar hybrid cooling system?

It was designed by professor and the imported

Line 14. The authors started to talk about EXERGY. I consider this is a vast issue to deal in another work.

Modified

The concept in the abstract is incomplete. The significance of the abstract is absent.

Modified

INTRODUCTION

Some needed issues are absent.

Modified

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

In line 135 you wrote “32 m2”, but in Table 1, you wrote “Length 3m, Width 2m”. This last numbers, are wrong?

It is the surface area of the room which is rectangular in shape

Modified

Equations. Several variables and parameters are not defined in the text. TR or RT is not defined too.

Modified

Line 229. ¿Chapter?

Modified

Here it referes that the performance of the system changes with time, due to change in solar intensity. OK, but this is not a correct concept of dynamic

Modified

Modified I still do not see the modification.

Line 328 to 339. It is not relevant, because we know how the CPC works.

Removed

Section 2.3.1. There is nothing new.

Modified

Section 2.4.1. It looks like a textbook, that is already known.

Trying to be informative

Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 Those balances are knowing, what is the new and the relevance?

Modified

Sections 2.5.1 to 2.5. 10 What is the relevance of all this?

Line 519. ¿Chapter? (this word again?)

Modified

Line 527. “this model of configuration” (it is not understable)

Lines 543 and 544. What do you mean with “i.e.”? The assumptions are not real? Please explain, what were you based on to make those assumptions?

Because the total cooling load for the room obtained was 1.98TR

In general, you must explain what is the justification of the assumptions in Configurations 3 to 5. Why didn't they experiment to validate them?

Unavailability of the resources including the manpower

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Lines 581 to 592. The authors make a list with all the results to analyze. However, these are a big task. The authors should focus in some of them, the more relevant.

Modified

Line 593. “The parametric analysis of various design parameters of system components is analyzed”, By itself, this topic is a very broad topic.

Modified

Line 600-601. “performance analysis the effect of the proposed model on the environment”, what is the mean of?

Modified

Page 33. There is no reference in the previous paragraph to Tables 8 and 9.

Modified

Section 3.2. The authors have not describing the EES Method, in consequence, that graphs (18 and 19) do not say anything. Table 10 and Figure 19 are not mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Modified

Line 630 (March 21), Line 645 (May 19). What is the real date?

Lines 646 and 647. It is not clear how was made?

Modified

Tables 11 to 14. The paper contains too many Figures and Tables. Not all these are necessary, please select only the really important.

Modified

Figure 21. The big dispersion do not show a straight line.

Used MS excel This is not a scientific answer.

Lines 700 to 702. The question is How did you analyzed all this? Please check the English congruence (plural and singular).

Modified

Line 709. Chapter 6?

Modified

Figures and Tables must be mentioned before, not after.

Modified

Lines 718 to 760. The authors should analyze the results that are not obvious, because only are describing what all people see.

Figures 24 to 28. Why the authors do not discuss why is repeated the result ( 9 and 19). Less figures and more discussion of relevant results please.

Modified

Line 764. It is not clear what the standard model is and why the comparison of this model with the experimental one is valid.

The standard model is for annual collection of solar intensity. For validating the CPC performance the model for experimental date is being considered.

Table 17, 18, 19, 20. A table is not an analysis results, are simply results. You are talking of parameters in various sections, what is your definition of parameter?

Modified

Figure 29. You don’t describe this figure in a paragraph.

Described

Line795and 798. All the paragraph it is not clear.

Modified

Lines 822 and 823. States, where are there?

Modified

Figures 31 to 33. Authors do not make reference in a previous text.

Modified

CONCLUSIONS

Lines 993 and 994. This paragraph must not be in conclusions.

Removed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

we really value your time and consideration, as the manuscript has undergone major changes, we apologize for specific comments. Please find the attached manuscript. thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

The readability of the manuscript has been significantly improved. Most of the comments, in particular the specific comments and the required amendments, have been taken into account by the authors.

In its current form, the manuscript is eligible for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

we truly value your time and comments. As the manuscript has undergone major revision please find the same attached.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend that this manuscript is ACCEPTED for publication without further review.

Author Response

I appreciate the attention to detail and the thoughtful feedback you provided, which has allowed me to see my work from a fresh perspective and identify areas that needed further development. Your expertise and suggestions have been invaluable in helping me refine my arguments and present my ideas in a more coherent and effective manner.

Thank you once again for your time and dedication in reviewing my work. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of my writing, and I am grateful for your invaluable input

Reviewer 3 Report

28 figures are still a lot, 23 tables there are too many. I must reject this third version of the paper again. There are some comments I had done in the previous version, which have not been taken care of.

The contribution or novelty is clearer in the paper. But, the structure of the article is still very tiring to read, impractical, exaggerated in its number of figures, tables and pages. This reviewer strongly request, again, that the authors undertake the task of restructure their article in detail.

Other formal suggestions to improve the writing are next.

Define the acronym EES in the abstract.

Air conditioning is with lowercase (lines 6 and 114).

There must be a space between the number and the unit in all the paper.

In all the paper, both in the text and in the Tables and Figures, there are a lot of mistakes in units: w instead W (watts), kw instead kW, or k instead K (Kelvin), K instead k (i.e.: kPa), etc. Please check in detail. I made this recommendation before.

Define the acronym in the text when is the first time: GHG and KSA (lines 21 and 22), GDP (line 30), VCR and VAR (lines 62 to 64), TR (line 123).

Line 23, need to quote.

Line 31, what is “m” in “12 m/day” and in “4 m”? (ensures correct writing of units).

In line 96 you wrote “32 m² with dimensions 3 X 2 X 2 i.e length, width and heigh respectively”, I insist there is a mistake when you say the number 3 is length, must be ‘heigh’.

Line 170. Explain in the paper why is dynamic.

Line 205. CLTD and HAP methods are not described how is its use in this paper in specific and the relevance.

Line 211. That's not how you make a quote (“Ref chapter 28 of ASHRAE fundamentals handbook”). Delete and write the correct style of quote.

Line 215. Mistake: “2.2.1 2.3.1 Performance analysis of CPC”

Lines 216 and 217. Table 5 is a picture. You must delete this picture and draw the table.

Line 229. It is a mistake to refer to eq. 2.16 and 2.17

Section 2.4, line 384. Explain how do you use the EES to simulate.

Line 458. Please use a word different of ‘analyzed’ in this phrase “the parametric analysis of the system components is analyzed”

Line 490 and 492. Why are you mentioning Figure 13 before Figure 12, please order.

Lines 508 and 505. You have two figures with number 13, please correct.

Figure 15. The big dispersion do not show a straight line. The authors said “used MS Excel”, but this is not a scientific answer.

Lines 544 and 547. Must be first mentioned Table 10 instead Table 11, please correct.

Line 568. Table caption says ‘14’, instead ‘13’, please correct. There is not Table 13. Please check in detail from table 13 onwards, both in the text and in the Table captions, as there are errors.

Line 579. Mistake: “kWTherefore”. Please correct.

Line 858. You said ‘with series’, must be ‘in series’.

OTHER ERRORS:

	Says	Must say
Page 4, line 98	“figure 1”	“Figure 1” (first capital letter)
Page 5, line 115	“figure 2”	“Figure 2” (first capital letter)
Line 457	“approch”	“approach”
Line 459	“analyses”	“analysis” (with ‘ i ‘)
Line 461	“discssion”	“discussion”

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you once again for your time and dedication in reviewing my work. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of my writing, and I am grateful for your invaluable input

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the manuscript presented for review is excessively large by the standards of a scientific article, its current readability has been significantly improved. Most of the specific comments and amendments required have been taken into account by the authors. However, it is recommended to supplement the literature review with existing items thematically related to the author's research for the Arabic Peninsula area.

In its current form, the manuscript, following the introduction of proposed additions to the area of literature review, is eligible for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Respected professor, the literature section has been extended from 24 to 42 and other comments have also been considered with all respect.

Thank you once again for your time and dedication in reviewing my work. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of my writing, and I am grateful for your invaluable input

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors. I have seen you have attended my observations. I must understand if Editor has not any comments about the number of Pages, Figures and Tables, maybe it is because he considers all of them are relevant. So, I have no other observations, except that I keep seeing some spelling errors and some repeated words. Please check carefully all the manuscript. It is not necessary to send me again.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my research article Your feedback and comments have been extremely valuable in improving the quality of the article

I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully considered all of your comments and suggestions, and I have made the necessary revisions to the article to address your concerns.

Once again, thank you for your time and effort in reviewing my article

Article Menu

Performance of Solar Hybrid Cooling Operated by Solar Compound Parabolic Collectors under Weather Conditions in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI