Influence of Ventilation Operating Modes on Energy Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have some suggestions to improve the work.

The scinetific literature should be updated and enriched, especially in the introduction and for the simulation software, citing other studies and main references, showing differences between this method and others (there are a lot of studies presenting simulation based on monitoring for the comfort and energy saving). The 7 scenarios should first be described in the text and then summarized in the table 2: the table is illegible. Similarly, the results in images 2, 3 and 4 are illegible.

The work is limited to describing the advantages and disadvantages of applying the different scenarios. To be meaningful, the paper should present a unique performance and comfort optimization solution, validated by simulations built on real data acquisition (see https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2548). As presented, the paper is not really relevant.

Pay attention to the text formatting.

Regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your report. We hope that we understood the essence of the comments correctly and are able to eliminate inaccuracies

The scientific literature should be updated and enriched, especially in the introduction and for the simulation software, citing other studies and main references, showing differences between this method and others (there are a lot of studies presenting simulation based on monitoring for the comfort and energy saving).

• The scientific literature list is updated

The 7 scenarios should first be described in the text and then summarized in the table 2: the table is illegible. Similarly, the results in images 2, 3 and 4 are illegible. 

• The description of scenarios added before the table

The work is limited to describing the advantages and disadvantages of applying the different scenarios. To be meaningful, the paper should present a unique performance and comfort optimization solution, validated by simulations built on real data acquisition (see https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2548).

• The scientific literature list is updated

 

Best regards,

Team of authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. A) General remarks

The research presents in this paper a very interesting topic, as well as results that are of wider significance when it comes to the improvement of the air quality in buildings. Unfortunately, at some points, the paper is unconcise and unclear, mainly due to not enough effort on the results presentation part. The literature in the paper is adequately cited although some state of the art elements is missing, especially in the introduction.

1. Extensive English style and sentence editing are required due to the language of some sentences being basic or with small grammatical errors.
2. The affiliation list is incomplete, missing faculty, address etc., information. Consult with the journal rules for the affiliation. Additionally, the Author 3 email address is a private one, not an institutional email address which is a common rule for professional scientific work.
3. The abstract needs style and text correction. For most parts, the English style looks like a google translation from the authors’ native language. Thus the style is basic and with some errors. Additionally:

• In line 15 it is stated “The results of the study can also be applied in a similar matter in other parts of Easters Europe…”, however, the results obtained in the study are not mentioned before. Thus this statement must be presented later after the authors introduce the aim and scope of the study in the abstract section.

4. The introduction requires editing and changing of style. It is difficult for the reader to get the significance of the references given in connection to the topic presented in the paper. It is unclear if some of the references are connected to the previous paragraph/sentence or the next one (e.g. ref 1). Additionally, the authors at some points give only a single reference for specific wider context applications e.g. passive house line 39 (ref DOI 10.18462/iir.icr.2015.0063 can be an additional choice.
5. Additionally, some filed of research are missing especially in the context of eastern Europe problems that are presented in the paper. The focus is clearly on CO2 and VOCs but retrofitting buildings in this area is also changing from coal furnaces to gas heaters and CO problem occurrence. The additional paragraph can be interesting in this scope e.g. DOI 10.3390/ATMOS12010079
6. Last but not least evaluating the state of the art much has been done in case of monitoring and adjusting ventilation strategies according to occupancy. Especially in the case of using IoT monitoring systems and cloud computing. This in connection with novel HVAC systems is a current trend that is interesting to include in the literature review e.g. DOI 10.1109/IDAACS53288.2021.9661000
7. When referencing multiple sources (more than two) in numbering order it is advised to use the stale for journals e.g. Line 55, 72 [3],[4],[5],[6] merge to [3-6]
8. Material and methods need correction. Little or no information with no connection to literature. E.g. authors’ are stating “Accuracy of this simulation tool 112
   was studied in several reports, who conducted an empirical validation study of models in IDA-ICE, related to the thermal behaviour of buildings and HVAC equipment.”, hoever no link to those reports. Furthermore, it is stated that there is a good correspondence of measurements with simulation but no proof is given. Without this, it is difficult to asset if the authors' approach has any relevant connection with real life. What is an error? How was it calculated?
9. In the case of the case study used it is not stated or stated not strongly enough what is the connection with a real structure. Does it exist? Is the material used for simulation also used in the real structure? Without the connection to real life, measurements the question of both novelty and relevance must be asked.
10. Table 1. Is a print screen from a pdf probably. Thus the quality is low. Please rewrite this table. Also, give the reference.
11. Fig,1 please enlarge. Fig.2 text and numbers are not visible please enlarge. Especially the scale, orientation and coordination system used are not visible.
12. Line 153- please do not start the sentence with the number “7”. Use the word “seven” instead
13. Table 2 please check the style of text for the tables in the journal. It looks that the font style and size are not following the journal rules.
14. Line 171 the wrong number is used for the figure it is Fig.3, not 2. Additionally, due to the small size, nothing is visible on the figure. Suggest dividing these two pictures into two different figures and enlarging the text/legend. Colours without the legend have no meaning for the reader. Now, it is difficult to guess what is measured and what is simulation. Similar to the next figure (also wrong number). For all those graphs also authors are required to use the same style of captions, legend styles, fonts sizes etc. Only then those figures can look professional. It is also difficult to see the timestamps on the figures. It looks that for some graphs the time is not stated and only axis captions state “time period”. The quality of the presented results must be improved.
15. The next figure (also wrong number) presents CO2 but the caption states it is fig (a) is then also a figure “b” or this is a mistake? The presentation of this figure must be also improved.
16. Conclusions must be improved. In the current form, there are mostly copies of the discussion elements, not real conclusions. What is the relevance of the findings to the region/industry/society

B) Conclusions:

The article although interesting at parts require significant changes to the style of the presentation, extensive editing and small reconfiguration of the presented elements. Authors are asked to keep in mind the satisfaction of the final reader. The weakest point is the way the results are presented. This must be improved.  

Currently, the reviewer can not assist if there are any methodological errors or problems with the results due to problems with figures quality and data information on the graphs. After the mayor changes the reviewer will assess these points again.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your report. We hope that we understood the essence of the comments and will be able to eliminate inaccuracies

1. A) General remarks

The research presents in this paper a very interesting topic, as well as results that are of wider significance when it comes to the improvement of the air quality in buildings. Unfortunately, at some points, the paper is unconcise and unclear, mainly due to not enough effort on the results presentation part. The literature in the paper is adequately cited although some state of the art elements is missing, especially in the introduction.

1. Extensive English style and sentence editing are required due to the language of some sentences being basic or with small grammatical errors.

 

• text has been corrected

 

1. The affiliation list is incomplete, missing faculty, address etc., information. Consult with the journal rules for the affiliation. Additionally, the Author 3 email address is a private one, not an institutional email address which is a common rule for professional scientific work.

 

Author 3 is the owner of a company that installs and adjusts ventilation systems. The author is an independent expert in this field. He has graduated master's program in the Riga Technical University. You can get acquainted with the activities of the company at www.ivancovs.com

 

 

1. The abstract needs style and text correction. For most parts, the English style looks like a google translation from the authors’ native language. Thus the style is basic and with some errors. Additionally:

 

• In line 15 it is stated “The results of the study can also be applied in a similar matter in other parts of Easters Europe…”, however, the results obtained in the study are not mentioned before. Thus this statement must be presented later after the authors introduce the aim and scope of the study in the abstract section.
  • text has been corrected

 

1. The introduction requires editing and changing of style. It is difficult for the reader to get the significance of the references given in connection to the topic presented in the paper. It is unclear if some of the references are connected to the previous paragraph/sentence or the next one (e.g. ref 1). Additionally, the authors at some points give only a single reference for specific wider context applications e.g. passive house line 39 (ref DOI 10.18462/iir.icr.2015.0063 can be an additional choice.

The scientific literature is updated 

 

1. Additionally, some filed of research are missing especially in the context of eastern Europe problems that are presented in the paper. The focus is clearly on CO2 and VOCs but retrofitting buildings in this area is also changing from coal furnaces to gas heaters and CO problem occurrence. The additional paragraph can be interesting in this scope e.g. DOI 10.3390/ATMOS12010079

The scientific literature is updated 

 

 

1. Last but not least evaluating the state of the art much has been done in case of monitoring and adjusting ventilation strategies according to occupancy. Especially in the case of using IoT monitoring systems and cloud computing. This in connection with novel HVAC systems is a current trend that is interesting to include in the literature review e.g. DOI 10.1109/IDAACS53288.2021.9661000

The scientific literature is updated 

1. When referencing multiple sources (more than two) in numbering order it is advised to use the stale for journals e.g. Line 55, 72 [3],[4],[5],[6] merge to [3-6]

text has been corrected

 

 

1. Material and methods need correction. Little or no information with no connection to literature. E.g. authors’ are stating “Accuracy of this simulation tool 112
   was studied in several reports, who conducted an empirical validation study of models in IDA-ICE, related to the thermal behaviour of buildings and HVAC equipment.”, hoever no link to those reports. Furthermore, it is stated that there is a good correspondence of measurements with simulation but no proof is given. Without this, it is difficult to asset if the authors' approach has any relevant connection with real life. What is an error? How was it calculated?

 

1. In the case of the case study used it is not stated or stated not strongly enough what is the connection with a real structure. Does it exist? Is the material used for simulation also used in the real structure? Without the connection to real life, measurements the question of both novelty and relevance must be asked.

 

 

1. Table 1. Is a print screen from a pdf probably. Thus the quality is low. Please rewrite this table. Also, give the reference.

text has been corrected

 

 

1. Fig,1 please enlarge. Fig.2 text and numbers are not visible please enlarge. Especially the scale, orientation and coordination system used are not visible.

text has been corrected

 

1. Line 153- please do not start the sentence with the number “7”. Use the word “seven” instead

text has been corrected

 

1. Table 2 please check the style of text for the tables in the journal. It looks that the font style and size are not following the journal rules.

text has been corrected

 

1. Line 171 the wrong number is used for the figure it is Fig.3, not 2. Additionally, due to the small size, nothing is visible on the figure. Suggest dividing these two pictures into two different figures and enlarging the text/legend. Colours without the legend have no meaning for the reader. Now, it is difficult to guess what is measured and what is simulation. Similar to the next figure (also wrong number). For all those graphs also authors are required to use the same style of captions, legend styles, fonts sizes etc. Only then those figures can look professional. It is also difficult to see the timestamps on the figures. It looks that for some graphs the time is not stated and only axis captions state “time period”. The quality of the presented results must be improved.

text has been corrected

 

 

1. The next figure (also wrong number) presents CO2 but the caption states it is fig (a) is then also a figure “b” or this is a mistake? The presentation of this figure must be also improved.

text has been corrected

 

1. Conclusions must be improved. In the current form, there are mostly copies of the discussion elements, not real conclusions. What is the relevance of the findings to the region/industry/society

1. B) Conclusions:

The article although interesting at parts require significant changes to the style of the presentation, extensive editing and small reconfiguration of the presented elements. Authors are asked to keep in mind the satisfaction of the final reader. The weakest point is the way the results are presented. This must be improved.  

Currently, the reviewer can not assist if there are any methodological errors or problems with the results due to problems with figures quality and data information on the graphs. After the mayor changes the reviewer will assess these points again.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The reviewer accepts the improved version of the manuscript.

Most of the comments and suggestions were taken into account. Although there is still some work that can be done into improving the quality of graphs and the presentation of the results, the research in the current state is sufficient to be published.