Feasibility Analysis of Creating Light Environment for Growing Containers with Marine Renewable Energy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper does the feasibility analysis of creating light environment for growing containers with marine renewable energy.
The paper is well-organised, figures are clear, understandable and visible.
References are also up-to-date.
I did not detect any major flaws of the paper.
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor and Authors
Sustainability Journal
Good morning and I hope you are doing well.
I would like to thank the editors and authors for trusting me to review a manuscript entitled: Feasibility analysis of creating light environment for growing containers with marine renewable energy. After reviewing the manuscript, there are many inputs that must be taken into considerations by the authors for manuscript improvement. Please find the following main input for your perusal/actions:
· Please provide novelties of your study and state them in introduction part
· Please correct English errors with the help from native speakers
· Please address all the comments from the reviewer
Thank you so much and I am looking forward your revisions
Best regards
AS
1. Please remove etc. Or e.g. In your abstract since it makes unclear or you can finalise the examples: Considering the energy consumption of lighting, air conditioning, ventilation, etc
2. In the abstract, your study results can be related to the future applications in industries, possibly
3. Please also provide a link with sustainability as a concluding results or consequences of your studies.
4. Please provide a reference: "Renewable Energy Generation Costs in 2021" 66 released by the International Renewable Energy Agency in July 2022
5. Testing environment: a small optical container platform and reflective devices, could you tell me the materials and specifications of these devices, such as: materials, made from.., size, etc
6. How many growing containers did you use for the study?
7. What are the replicability and reproducibility of the method used? Did you refer to he previous studies for using the research method?
8. What kind of statistics did you use for measuring three replicates of your measurements?
9. What kind of species did you use for planting? Why did you use same or different species option? Plants growth will be depending on its species and other ecological factors.
10. Did you cultivate the plants starting from seeds or seedlings with a maturity of 25 cm?
11. For all formulas, formula 1-3, please cite the literatures or sources if the formulas were taken from other sources
12. Fig 5 and 6 shows the different patterns of illumination pattern under simulated and actual illumination with and without reflectors, please provide a clear explanation and mechanism why patterns are different, and what factors besides reflector did affect the patterns?
13. Table 2, you only refer to the data available from the previous studies. We sugest the authors to provide the similar parameters or data.
14. Some literatures are not up to date, meaning far from a ten year updated literature. Please remove non updated literatures.
Thank you so much
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The review comments for the manuscript are given below,
1. The authors presented an analysis on the usage of renewable energy for container growing. The article is good but needs few changes for betterment.
2. Language need to be improved a lot.
3. Add more literature survey with recent ones.
4. Also add the organization of the manuscript at the end of Introduction Section.
5. Figure 7 & 9 quality must be improved. The axes captions and data are visible.
6. Conclusion must be precise and brief. Remove the known facts.
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The MS no. sustainability-1966613 (Feasibility Analysis of Creating Light Environment for Growing Containers with Marine Renewable Energy) by Kuang and colleagues seems to be very interesting, highly effective, and well within the Journal scope. In the MS, the authors report on developing a growing container followed by assessing for offshore renewable energy for food production. Interestingly, their results were found to be significant overall and MS is without plagiarism when checked for similarity.
However, as per my thorough assessment, the MS seems to have a few shortcomings, that need to be worked on before acceptance of the article. The comments are as follows:
1. The nomenclature (Abbreviations) should be placed after Conflict of Interests.
2. Figure legends for Figures 1, 2, 4, and 9 should be extended for enhancing the readers understanding.
3. The formatting for the MS should be done properly including giving space before references ([1], [2,3], etc), Table and Figure referencing within the text.
4. After Lines 253, 273, 297, 343, a line spacing should be given as the Figure legend seem to be in continuity with the text, which can create confusion for the readers.
5. The statistical analysis is missing as p value was not mentioned in the text, I suggest authors analyze the data using R, GraphPad prism, or SPSS and put it in the MS while revising.
6. A basic skeleton diagram should be added in the M&M section clearly pointing toward the entire methodology of the paper. This addition will definitely impact the MS influence. For reference see, http://sciencemission.com/site/index.php?page=news&type=view&id=microbiology-virology%2Fdetecting-gut-microbes&filter=8%2C9%2C10%2C11%2C12%2C13%2C14%2C16%2C17%2C18%2C19%2C20%2C27.
I surely feel the authors can work on the above-mentioned comments easily and resubmit the Improved MS. So, at present, I suggest “Accept after Minor Revisions”.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Feasibility analysis of creating light environment for growing 2 containers with marine renewable energy
Abstract:
Line 14-15: the sentence “To find an application …..” is not complete. Combine it with the following one “Here, growing ….” After deleting the word “Here”
Line 23: “was” instead of “is”
Introduction:
The authors provided valuable general information about the pros of growing containers with renewable energy together with the definition of growing containers. Yet, the introduction lacks information about previously published work on the feasibility studies of similar ideas and what is new regarding the current work to fill the gap in the previous work. At least a paragraph comprising such information is to be added.
Line 61: I think you mean “can be achieved by increasing…”
Line 70: “Food growing application..” please remove the word “application”
Line 82: change “multiple” to “multiply”
Methodology:
Line: Line 105, add “,” after “lightning”
Figure 3. Please check whether Fig. 3 provides results and whether it is better to move it to the Results section
Line 130: provide the manufacturer and origin of DELI illuminance meter
Line 141: The values of dimensions here and elsewhere in the manuscript are very big in mm, why don’t the authors try to convert them to Cm instead?
Line 167 , 176: please provide more information about the TRACEPRO tool, and MERO4 reflector (source, manufacturer, ….)
Table 1: Have the Eave values reported been directly measured by authors? How? Or they have been calculated? Where are the equations?
Lines 189-202: sections 2.3.1. The information provided is good as an introduction or discussion. The authors also use the present and future tenses referring to the methods done in the past. Please rewrite and specify the plant varieties or cultivars you used, and the specific conditions for each one, and the source of information about these specific conditions whether a pilot experiment or the literature. The same for lines 218-226, with a lot of explanations and discussion.
Results:
please rewrite in the past tense since you are reporting your findings. Do that to the whole Results section. Only when you refer to a Table or Figure, do you use the present tense.
Line 247: add “that” after “than”
Line 248: delete “is”
Line 249: delete “is”.
Lines 249-252: The sentences starting “, meaning that …….” are a better fit for the discussion section
Line 253-262: The authors keep saying “short-growth cycle crops”. could they specify some?
Line 265: “reached” instead of “reaches”
Section 4. Energy consumption and costs:
I am not sure if this section is a substitute for the Discussion or not. Please check with the Journal Editor.
Figure 9: If this section doesn’t belong to the Results section, please move Figure 9 to Results.
Conclusions:
This part is poorly written and structured, very long, with many details and no concrete conclusions
Line 366: use “was” instead of “were”
Line 367: “compared with” instead of “compared to”
Line 369: again, what are the short-growth cycle crops employed in the study?
Line 370: You refer to the results, so use the past “showed, improved, ….”
Line 386: An incomplete sentence “Competitive to the current cost of traditional planting under reasonable planting.”
Line 387: the authors give instructions not conclusions “Choose some crops with a higher market price to grow.”
Lines 387-390: good for introduction or discussion, not conclusions
Author Response
å°†å…¶ä¸Šä¼ ä¸º PDF 文件
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor and Authors
Good morning and I hope you are doing well.
I would like to provide you inputs related to the revised manuscript. After reviewing the manuscript, it is very well-improved with many information and data as well as literature. However, I have some points that need to be addressed:
1. This manuscript needs to be reviewed more than 1 reviewer. I noted that only one reviewer perused and perr-reviewed the manuscript. It is not appropriate to justify the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript from one reviewer
2. For statistical method, the authors are recommended to test the significance of the averaged values
3. The authors are also recommended to check English quality of the manuscript
Thank you so much and I am looking forward to hearing the revised manuscript.
Best regards
AS
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Thanks for giving me the chance to revise the corrections done by the authors
I noticed, however, that the lines weren't numbered, which made it very difficult to trace the changes done by authors and even to add new comments on these changes
Further, The authors substituted the Discussion section with another one entitled "Energy consumption", please check with authors and confirm whether it is allowed
Thanks again
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
Good morning and I hope you are doing well.
The authors revised and improved the manuscript well. The article was just to check its English by a native speaker who understands the study. All the revised issues were completed, and the manuscript can be published.
Congratulations on your tremendous work...
Best regards
Achmad Solikhin
Author Response
upload it as a PDF file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
