Life Cycle Assessment of Lighting Systems and Light Loss Factor: A Case Study for Indoor Workplaces in France
, Laurent Canale 1, Oussama Ben Abdellah 1, Marc-André Méquignon 2 and Georges Zissis 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments and suggestions for the authors are provided in the attachment. Please read carefully and act upon it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you very much for your comments. We do appreciate your remarks and have taken them into consideration. We realize that there was in some parts lack of precision in our informations and we did adress them to further explain our point of views.
I hope that our corrections will answer all the remarks.
We have answered in your text for each remark :
The entire document has been thoroughly reviewed in order to make it clearer and in a more correct English language.
--------------
Overall
This paper have an interesting main idea to bring in the scientific area, focusing on assessing environmental impacts of different types of light sources. This paper has good quality of work and modelling the results. It is great to see how difference types of lights perform differently. Thus, this work deserves to be published.
However, it is not well written. The authors often do not use proper words and concise sentences. Many unnecessary words and phrases and typos (misspellings) are found. Many points are not straightforwardly written. We understand maybe English is not the first language of the authors. Thus, we highly reccommend the authors to use English service available in Elsevier or MDPI. It is not free but it is way better to improve the writtings. I see there is huge potential of this paper to be beneficial for other researchers and highly cited due to the interesting topic and main idea. However, it will be unfortunate if the readers do not get the main interesting points of the authors trying to get across just because of low quality of writting. So, using English service is highly suggested (for the sake of readibility).
At the end of the day, if the work is good by the way of communicating is poor then nobody can take benefit from it.
The paper has been reviewed and corrected by two English native people.
Title
The title could be shortened and better revised, for example:
Life Cycle Assessment of Office Lighting: Impacts of Light Loss Factor and Lamps Replacement Strategies (A case study in France)
Title has been modified and Office Lighting became Indoor Workplaces to be compliant with the definition of French Norm NF EN 12464-1
Abstract
Abstract has been fully rewritten taking in consideration your remarks.
The abstract is not well written. First sentence is not concise and confusing.
The word including appears two times in line 12 and 14. Please revise the sentence.
CORRECTED
Line 11. LCA is not “cradle to grave” methodology. Where this definition comes from? LCA could be cradle to gate, gate to cradle or even cradle to cradle.
We removed “cradle to grave” from the abstract but kept it in the introduction as a citation from ISO 14040:2006 (Line 54).
Line 12. What does the author mean by “compare”? LCA is indeed a tool to evaluate potential environmental impacts but not necessarily to compare. It could be done for hotspot analysis only.
Line 12. The impacts could be real and potential impacts. If all the data are from primary sources then it is real impact but if not, as in your case, it must be called potential environmental impacts.
Line 13. Please write in chronological order of life cycle of product starting from raw material extraction, transportation, use phase etc to the end of life stage. The authors here start from manufacturing then, shipment and then raw material. Please write in logical order.
Line 14. Please delete “…” (Please pay attention to small details)
Line 15. Please formulate again this sentence. But the usage efficiency is not taken into account in this kind of “standard” lighting systems LCA study.
Line 15. Delete word “this kind of”. It is subjective word. It could be written like But the usage efficiency is not taken into account in some (or most) lighting systems LCA study.
Line 15. …
Line 15. Why put quotation mark “” for the word office lighting
ALL CORRECTED
Line 18. Rephrase the sentences such this study is performed using real data as foreground source and ecoinvent database as background source.
The sentence is corrected and moved to line 195
Line 19. There is no Simapro software (version 9.0.0.33). Please check again. In the reviewer’s opinion, the authors do not need to specify the software and database used because it is not the main content of research. Just mention them in methodology not in the abstract.
I’ve checked and I can confirm that the version of Simapro we used is v9.0.0.33.
It has been removed from abstract but it’s still visible line 194.
Abstract must deliver the main content or “meat” of the overall work
Line 18. Please split the sentence becomes two. I don’t quite understand what the author wanted to say here. What is the main idea.
Line 20. Luminaire comes first so it should be LDD and RDD (not the other way around).
Line 22. Please split the sentence. The idea of “in order to define the best strategy for lamps replacement” should be clearly written or better written in new different sentence.
ALL CORRECTED
Introduction
Introduction has been also fully rewritten
Line 29. The opening statement is very weak. If the authors want to say that LCA is internationally well-known standardized, harmonized and developed methodology then the authors must refer to a recent paper, for example: Fauzi et al 2019. Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Zimek et al. 2019 The Third Wave of LCA as the “Decade of Consolidation”.
Following remarks from reviewers 2, two citations have been added in two first paragraphs of the introduction. Thank you for these two references, we used them later in the introduction line 139 and in the discussion line 474.
Line 42. “All these studies” This statement should be followed by at least two or three references.
CORRECTED. Line 74 The reference is a review of 12 LCA studies
Line 51. Delete the word “then”.
CORRECTED
Line 51. LCA what? Better use LCA studies
CORRECTED
Line 55. Please use more references and add more recent ones.
Two references have been added line 115.
Line 56. “This can lead to misunderstanding” can you add some references?
One references added line 123
Line 66. Lamps specification have been adjusted to insure that lamps are interchangeable between each other’s, that’s mean they are able deliverer a similar Maintained lumen Output (M-lmO) during their respective lifetime. Please rewrite again this sentence. Other’s? that’s mean?
CORRECTED line 147
More comments:
This paper gives an introductory description about energy efficiency in the building context and on how important it is to consider its life cycle cost to make a better informed decision making.
I appreciate the coverage and potential contribution of the paper, but I find a significant need for increased clarity. I feel the "clarity of purpose and contribution" could be enhanced. Could the authors ask "why am I writing this section, what are the novel advances, and what conclusions can I draw"?. And do not hesitate to refer to more studies.
The last paragraph in the introduction part should more clarify this. In other way, the authors could make this paragraph coherence with the contribution of this paper the authors mentioned in the last pararaph of conclusion.
Introduction has been fully rewritten to clarify the purpose and contributions. 14 references have been added amoung the whole article. We hope that all the modifications have increased the clarity of the abstract and the introduction.
Methodology
The authors should mentioned the four stages of conducting LCA: Goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. Put the picture and briefly discuss it.
The scope of the study must be clearly defined or if it is necessary, it should be drawn in a figure.
CORRECTED Figure 1 and line 61-69 has been added to the text.
The authors must point more what that has been included and excluded and all the assumptions made.
CORRECTED System boundaries section (line157) has been added. We tried to make clearer that this article is an update of the previous study from DOE. We used the same data and assumptions.
The functional unit is wrong. Functional unit should has a similar system. As I understood, you FU is in line 128. Your functional unit is to maintain RDDxLDD value for three years and 0,98 is chosen.
Line 128. Please revise the sentence, too many repetitions and not concise “To defined RDD and LDD its assumed that a 3 years’ maintenance are performed and RDDxLDD value will not go underneath 0,96 during 3 years. 0,98 is defined as the 129 median value during this period of time [14].” It is better like this:
The functional unit of this study is to maintain and perform RDDxLDD value for three years and the median value of 0,98 is chosen.
We made clearer that the functional unit is 34.82 Mlm.h (line 246). RDD*LDD is only a parameter used to calculate the Light Loss Factor and it is not the functional unit
Line 140. Delete the word FU because it is not FU. It is RF (Reference flow). Please study more about the difference between FU and RF and rewrite again the sentence and do not misunderstood again between FU and RF.
Again, your main idea is great but please you should communicate better by understanding the terms.
CORRECTED. You’re right, we’ve corrected this mistake and made a clear distinction between the functional unit and the reference flow.
Results
Line 161. Worst sounds harsh please use better word like less-performing or other, if you can. You can say it has lowest score and let the reader interpret.
Line 173 These firsts statements? Misspelling
Table 181 (Table 3) Waste? Do the authors mean end of life phase?
ALL CORRECTED
The inventory data or analysis should be attached at least in supplementary material.
So, we n=know where the numbers are from.
We add the inventory data to supplementary material and specify that they are also available into the DOE papers
Line 331. Prize??
Line 332. Cheaper? Better use more economic.
Line 334. How and the way is the same thing. Delete one of them either the way people are using or how people are using.
Last sentence should be splitted becomes two sentences.
ALL CORRECTED
Last comments
More references is needed.
CORRECTED we have added 14 more references
Table 3 is not referred in any sentence. Table 3 is not described in any section?
Table 3 was mentioned and describe line 178-188. It is now mentioned an describe line 284-298
----------------
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author use a lot of abbreviations terms or professional terminology which assumes the author are experts in the field. It will be great to use less abbreviation terms and explain more what exactly the authors wish to write.
State what is LCA in the introduction first paragraph with citation. The second paragraph should have one citation. Why LCA is important to us? What does the paper try to contribute to the body of knowledge? Introduction part has to be rewritten to tighten the relationship between LCA and the lighting for studying. Why these couple of lights have to be included?
Why Light-Emitting Diode (LED), Compact fluorescent Lamp (CFL) and Fluorescent Tube (T5) for office lighting in France, by considering the function that each system should actually complete using standard of office lighting equipment? How does the Table 1 corresponds to these, please state in the paragraph as well as the Table 1.
Why office lighting in France? Lighting system is everywhere…?
The author has to state how do these contribute to academia. Or else, that can be done by consumer council? Or something alike?
Line 188, benefic? Please polish the whole paper.
Line 204-205, A Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses has been run to evaluate these uncertainties and results. The author must state what is this and why? Support from literature is also needed. 209-223 is difficult to follow. We are not sure why this test is needed and unclear about the contribution of the research results.
Line 234, a 5% augmentation of manufacturing…why 5% but not 6 or 7…? Is there any literature to support?
Line 244, Asumption?
Line 264, In case of new construction or building renovation there is no logic of replacement? The first part is understandable, but why renovation has no logic of replacement?
Table 5, Lamps specifications, can the author tells what do the terms refer to?
Line 271, lifetime global consumption? What does it mean?
Line 293, Scenario 1 to 5 show global reduction between 24% and 32.1%? What does the term global reduction mean?
Line 330, To conclude, this work proposes an environmental point of view and lamp replacement strategies are also influenced by economic and social aspect? Please explain the three parts in details.
Highlight what the authors have contributed in the conclusion.How does the paper contribute to LCA?
Please consider to include the following paper and state what exactly your paper attempts to contribute to:
A comparative life cycle assessment of luminaires for general lighting for the office – compact fluorescent (CFL) vs Light Emitting Diode (LED) – a case study
A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear and wind power: A China study
A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of lighting technologies for greenhouse crop production
Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you very much for your comments. We do appreciate your remarks and have taken them into consideration. We realize that there was in some parts lack of precision in our informations and we did adress them to further explain our point of views.
I hope that our corrections will answer all the remarks.
We have answered in your text for each remark :
The entire document has been thoroughly reviewed in order to make it clearer and in a more correct English language.
----------------
Review 2 comments :
The author use a lot of abbreviations terms or professional terminology which assumes the author are experts in the field. It will be great to use less abbreviation terms and explain more what exactly the authors wish to write.
We try to limit the abbreviation to the terms used in tables and equations. However we kept Light Loss Factor (LLF), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Constant Lighting Output (CLO) and LED CFL and T5 as they are mentioned a lot in the paper
State what is LCA in the introduction first paragraph with citation. The second paragraph should have one citation. Why LCA is important to us? What does the paper try to contribute to the body of knowledge? Introduction part has to be rewritten to tighten the relationship between LCA and the lighting for studying.
Introduction has been fully rewritten to clarify the purpose and contributions. Two citations have been added to define LCA. We hope that all the modifications have increased the clarity of the abstract and the introduction.
Why these couple of lights have to be included?
We made clearer that this work is an update and adaptation to France of a previous work from US Departement of Energy. The inventories data are much more detailed than in the other studies and to ensure the uniformity we decide to not include other lamps to the study until we reach the same quality of inventory. The parameters have been adjusted to represent the french market.
Why Light-Emitting Diode (LED), Compact fluorescent Lamp (CFL) and Fluorescent Tube (T5) for office lighting in France, by considering the function that each system should actually complete using standard of office lighting equipment? How does the Table 1 corresponds to these, please state in the paragraph as well as the Table 1.
Why office lighting in France? Lighting system is everywhere…?
All introduction has been rewritten and this sentences has been removed. Office lighting has been change for indoor work places as define by the norms. We use this norm to explain how lighting systems are really installed and propose to use the same logic to conduct the study and a life cycle cost (under progress). We try to make it clearer into the abstract and introduction. France has been chosen because the singularity of the electricity mix has not been studied yet.
The author has to state how do these contribute to academia. Or else, that can be done by consumer council? Or something alike?
We have developed the contribution in the abstract and introduction.
Other than studying the French case, this work is the first step to continue to develop a methodology for a life cycle sustainability assessment of lighting systems. It is necessary to study the environmental, economic, and human impacts simultaneously and this paper contributes by proposing a new definition of the functional unit, taking into consideration economical and human aspect.
Line 188, benefic? Please polish the whole paper.
Corrected
Line 204-205, A Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses has been run to evaluate these uncertainties and results. The author must state what is this and why? Support from literature is also needed. 209-223 is difficult to follow. We are not sure why this test is needed and unclear about the contribution of the research results.
Details about the uncertainties have been added to the text:
These uncertainties are generated by the variation and stochastic error of the values which describe the exchanges, due to measurement uncertainties, activity specific variations or temporal variations. When the relevant information to completely describe an activity in detail is unavailable, the average data applied will have a basic uncertainty that reflects the lack of knowledge on their precise nature.
Uncertainties analysis is part of the LCA methodology and have to be done.
Line 234, a 5% augmentation of manufacturing…why 5% but not 6 or 7…? Is there any literature to support?
5% augmentation was not support by any literature. We decide to modify this part, and we do not consider anymore an augmentation of manufacturing. Instead we have calculated the reduction of potential impacts with no additional materials, and we show in table 5 the margin for increasing the manufacturing impact
Line 244, Asumption?
CORRECTED
Line 264, In case of new construction or building renovation there is no logic of replacement? The first part is understandable, but why renovation has no logic of replacement?
We agree all renovation will not induce that we will modify the lamps implementation but it is a possibility depending on the level of “renovation”. We decide then to just replace the word by refurbishment.
Table 5, Lamps specifications, can the author tells what do the terms refer to?
Notes have been added under the table
Line 271, lifetime global consumption? What does it mean?
Replaced by global energy consumption. It is the total amount of energy consumption to respect the functional unit
Line 293, Scenario 1 to 5 show global reduction between 24% and 32.1%? What does the term global reduction mean?
Replaced by potential environmental impacts reduction
Line 330, To conclude, this work proposes an environmental point of view and lamp replacement strategies are also influenced by economic and social aspect? Please explain the three parts in details.
Highlight what the authors have contributed in the conclusion. How does the paper contribute to LCA?
Discussion part have been move into results. As discussion we compared our first results with a classic study and a classic functional unit. We show how taking into consideration the LLF can modify the results of the assessment. We also detail the economical and human aspect at the end of discussion and conclusion.
Please consider to include the following paper and state what exactly your paper attempts to contribute to:
A comparative life cycle assessment of luminaires for general lighting for the office – compact fluorescent (CFL) vs Light Emitting Diode (LED) – a case study
Already included
A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear and wind power: A China study
A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of lighting technologies for greenhouse crop production
The reference has been added
---------
Kind Regards,
Dr L. Canale
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for a very well developed research paper that leaves me with minor comments only:
Equation 1 should include LlmD not LLMF if I understand your approach correctly Given that the readers of this particular journal are not fully familiar with LCA, some more background would be useful. To be more precise it would be helpful to elaborate the importance and role of functional unit within LCA further. It would be useful to reflect on the implications of your results for the general discussion on functional unit in LCA in the outlook of your paper. I recommend to introduce and use the term "reference flow" alongside functional unit (see ISO 14040/44 etc.). It helps to avoid confusion. In particular, I recommend to adjust the section concerning Tab. 2. FU in Tab. 2 is actually the reference flow (different no. of lamps). The FU is the same in all cases, the RF is different!Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you very much for your comments. We do appreciate your remarks and have taken them into consideration. We realize that there was in some parts lack of precision in our informations and we did adress them to further explain our point of views.
I hope that our corrections will answer all the remarks.
We have answered in your text for each remark :
The entire document has been thoroughly reviewed in order to make it clearer and in a more correct English language.
Review 3 Comments :
Thank you for a very well developed research paper that leaves me with minor comments only:
Equation 1 should include LlmD not LLMF if I understand your approach correctly Given that the readers of this particular journal are not fully familiar with LCA, some more background would be useful. To be more precise it would be helpful to elaborate the importance and role of functional unit within LCA further. It would be useful to reflect on the implications of your results for the general discussion on functional unit in LCA in the outlook of your paper. I recommend to introduce and use the term "reference flow" alongside functional unit (see ISO 14040/44 etc.). It helps to avoid confusion. In particular, I recommend to adjust the section concerning Tab. 2. FU in Tab. 2 is actually the reference flow (different no. of lamps). The FU is the same in all cases, the RF is different!
You’re right, thank you for that good advice. We made the correction about the mistake between the functional unit and the reference flow.
We also detailed the LCA presentation and methodology and we hope we have increased the clarity of the paper for people not familiar with LCA.
Kind Regards
Dr L. Canale
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In General, i recommend a total revision of this manuscript before resubmission.
1.Introduction is not focused on the problem. It should also be clearly stated, why this study is important.
2.Literature review is absolutely insufficient. Moreover, it is inappropriate to use 50% of reference list in one reference (line 49).
3.Major part of the methodology is not justified or not described. For example (lines 84-85), why exactly 4 phases? Where is the description of Monte-Carlo simulations? etc.
4.Each phase of the life cycle should be described and discussed in details. Table 3 is not enough.
5.Results section should correlate with methodology section. In present form, obtained results seem to me not reliable.
6.Discussion section. It is necessary to compare results of the research with similar studies. Why Table 6 is in discussion section? It would be better to place it in Results.
Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you very much for your comments. We do appreciate your remarks and have taken them into consideration. We realize that there was in some parts lack of precision in our informations and we did adress them to further explain our point of views.
I hope that our corrections will answer all the remarks.
We have answered in your text for each remark :
The entire document has been thoroughly reviewed in order to make it clearer and in a more correct English language.
Review 4 / comments :
In General, i recommend a total revision of this manuscript before resubmission.
1.Introduction is not focused on the problem. It should also be clearly stated, why this study is important.
Introduction and Abstract have been totally rewritten to give more detail about why this study is needed and what are the contributions.
2.Literature review is absolutely insufficient. Moreover, it is inappropriate to use 50% of reference list in one reference (line 49).
We almost double the number of references.
3.Major part of the methodology is not justified or not described. For example (lines 84-85), why exactly 4 phases? Where is the description of Monte-Carlo simulations? etc.
The introduction and the methodology parts have been developed to give more details. However, LCA is regulated by an ISO standard and the methodology is fully developed in it.
Details about the Monte Carlo simulations have also been added.
4.Each phase of the life cycle should be described and discussed in details. Table 3 is not enough.
The goal of this study is not to study further the impacts of each phase. This is an update of a previous work US DOE, and looking closer into each life cycle phase will not offer new findings or information regarding the previous work. Table3 is here to illustrate the inversion of the repartition between the manufacturing and the use phases.
5.Results section should correlate with methodology section. In present form, obtained results seem to me not reliable.
We modify the general structuration of the paper to highlight the different steps of the methodology we have followed. The results section presents the Life Cycle Impacts Assessment as it should be in any LCA studies.
6.Discussion section. It is necessary to compare results of the research with similar studies. Why Table 6 is in discussion section? It would be better to place it in Results.
Table 6 has been moved to results section and discussion has been rewritten. We realise another assessment without using the light loss factor in order to compare with the results that a classical study will gave. We highlight the differences and confirm the need to consider lumen depreciation for LCA in France.
Kind Regards
Dr L. Canale
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The title is too long. It can be shortened.
The abstract should only contain the objective of the research, research gap that it intends to fill, research method, results (what results make readers and people in the field surprise). Please check the abstract length requirement of this journal and adhere to the requirements.
Remove the definition of Life Cycle Assessment from the abstract.
The part of the introduction "LCA is conducted following the four steps presented in Figure 1." sounds like research method. This part should be moved to the research method section. Moreover, it lacks of the literature support.
Lines 61-69 do not have any citations at all.
Section 2, the background of all these lamps need to be stated. For example, are they new to society? When were these produced? Why these five are included but not the others? What is the importance of including these lamps?
There are clearly many lamps in this World. Thus, please Table the background of these lamps.
3.2, please state the full names of RDD and LDD.
Too many abbreviations in the conclusion part, e.g. LLF etc. Please turn these to full names.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
we took all of your remarks into consideration and made the necessary corrections in the article. Please find detailed corrections point by point below:
------------------
- The title is too long. It can be shortened.
Title has been modified to “Life Cycle Assessment of Lighting Systems and Light Loss Factor (a case study for Indoor Workplaces in France)”.
- The abstract should only contain the objective of the research, research gap that it intends to fill, research method, results (what results make readers and people in the field surprise). Please check the abstract length requirement of this journal and adhere to the requirements.
The abstract has been rewritten. It is now 206 words.
- Remove the definition of Life Cycle Assessment from the abstract.
Corrected.
- The part of the introduction "LCA is conducted following the four steps presented in Figure 1." sounds like research method. This part should be moved to the research method section. Moreover, it lacks of the literature support.
- Lines 61-69 do not have any citations at all.
This part has been moved to methods section “1.1 LCA framework” under Materials and Methods. Line 61-69 are now line 124-138. Text has been enriched with citation from ISO standard.
- Section 2, the background of all these lamps need to be stated. For example, are they new to society? When were these produced? Why these five are included but not the others? What is the importance of including these lamps?
- There are clearly many lamps in this World. Thus, please Table the background of these lamps.
Background of lamp has been developed in line 143-154.
- 3.2, please state the full names of RDD and LDD.
Corrected (line 242-244)
- Too many abbreviations in the conclusion part, e.g. LLF etc. Please turn these to full names.
Corrected (line 499-530)
-------------------------------------
Authors would like to thank you for all your corrections and your work which allowed us to improve the quality of this article.
Kind Regards,
Dr L. Canale.
Reviewer 4 Report
In General, i see that authors have made a great job to improve the quality of this article and i have to change my previous decision. I have only minor comments to the content of the revised version.
1.The Abstract is too long. According to the journal's requirements, it should be around 200 words.
2.Fig. 1 Caption. The right bracket is missed.
3.I think it would be better to place the sentence with fig 1 mention (line 58) in the previous paragraph. It would also be better to combine paragraphs in lines 61-69 in a one single paragraph.
4.Please, decipher all acronyms at the first mention (LED, CEREN). It is also recommended to add a short explanation of T# abbreviations (line 96).
5.Regarding Monte-Carlo. I strongly recommend to mention it in methodology section, to explain reasons of its using. Please, add the table with all (or main) input value ranges before fig. 7.
General advice. To make an additional rounds of review easier and faster, please, specify the lines with corrections for each comment.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
we took all of your remarks into consideration and made the necessary corrections in the article. Please find detailed corrections point by point below:
----------------------
In General, i see that authors have made a great job to improve the quality of this article and i have to change my previous decision. I have only minor comments to the content of the revised version.
Thank you for your comment. Your remarks really helped to improve the quality and we’re pleased that you reconsidered you decision.
1.The Abstract is too long. According to the journal's requirements, it should be around 200 words.
The abstract has been rewritten (206 words).
2.Fig. 1 Caption. The right bracket is missed.
Corrected (line 123)
3.I think it would be better to place the sentence with fig 1 mention (line 58) in the previous paragraph. It would also be better to combine paragraphs in lines 61-69 in a one single paragraph.
Corrected (line 121 -138)
After a request from a reviewer, this text has been modified to add citations from ISO standard, and has been moved into methods section ‘2.1 LCA framework”
4.Please, decipher all acronyms at the first mention (LED, CEREN). It is also recommended to add a short explanation of T# abbreviations (line 96).
Corrected
LED line 46 / CEREN line 69
Explanation about T# abbreviations added line 71-74
5.Regarding Monte-Carlo. I strongly recommend to mention it in methodology section, to explain reasons of its using. Please, add the table with all (or main) input value ranges before fig. 7.
Including a table with all (or main) input ranges of the Monte Carlo analysis is not possible for the following reasons:
One possibility is to move Montecarlo analysis to Annex if you think it disrupts the flow of the main text.
Figure 7 can also be replaced or associated with a Table if needed.
-------------------------------------
Except for the last point for which we hope to have convinced you of the impossibility of answering it completely, we have made all the corrections requested.
The authors thank you and thank all the reviewers for their comments that have helped this article to be greatly improved.
Kind Regards,
Dr L. Canale
