Growing Kratky Basil in Trombe Wall Cavity: Energy Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is related to hydroponically grown basil plant in the interior part of Trombe Wall to properly utilize the space's year-round usability. 

The paper has novelty and it can be considered for publication with some corrections. 

Can the author(s) provide its feasibility in all-weather condition since weather condition won't be the same all around the world?  Are they area specific? 

Can you produce the rough estimation of energy saving during this process? 

What would its prospect in terms of attaining sustainability? 

How much carbon offset can be attained through this process?

Could you provide some additional literature in terms of some recent development in line with this research work? 

Will it not affect the thermodynamic properties of air during the night? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some corrections are needed in terms of sentence making. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is relevant, and its content may be of interest to potential readers. The authors showed a wide knowledge of the researched issues. At the same time, I have certain doubts and comments regarding some aspects of the research carried out by the authors:

1. In the Abstract and in the Introduction (perhaps in subsection 1.4), it is worth indicating the region in which the experiment took place (the Kyushu Island in Japan).

2. The first sentence in subsection 1.4 is more of a research question than a statement of the research objective. In general, I recommend having one main goal and several tasks in subsection 1.4.

3. Authors should check the presence of all necessary references to sources of information throughout the text of the manuscript. For example, this applies to the beginning of subsection 1.2 (lines 54-59), as well as some data in Table 3.

4. The procedure and results of using Pearson's correlation coefficients should be explained in more detail in subsection 2.3.

5. In subsection 4.3, it is appropriate to discuss in more detail the statement made in the second sentence of the first paragraph (lines 388-389).

6. Please check the references for all tables and figures, particularly Figure 3. References should appear in the text before the relevant tables and figures.

7. Authors should carefully check the text of the manuscript for finding and correcting typos, as well as some grammatical improvement. In particular, the text contains the phrase “Error! Reference source not found".

8. The design of the manuscript does not fully meet the requirements of this journal. In particular, this applies to the design of tables. I recommend that authors take as a sample those articles that have already been published in this journal.

I think it is appropriate to acquaint the authors with these comments and suggestions. I hope that such an acquaintance helps to improve the quality of the manuscript, which is expected to be published in such a high-ranking journal as "Applied Sciences".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 73: correct to academic language - By the way, this last study ...

Line 78 - these are opposing statements: 'have been in use for a long time in the agricultural settings (for example, in recent studies...

Lines 79 - 80 correct the referencing here

Lines 241-242 are not clear and not finished. 

There are multiple references in the result section, that should be moved to the discussion. Or combine the results and discussion, since the large discussion is supported only by 4 references.  Furthermore, exclude the references from the conclusion section. 

In general, the study has some applicability but lacks the scientific dimension, sounding more like a patent or technical report. It should be rephrased. Consider this suggestion throughout the entire manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) has addressed all the raised queries and I am satisfied with the detailed explanation. 

Economic aspect can be added. 

Good luck for your future work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences need correction. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for implementing required changes.