A Study on the Impact of Different Cooling Methods on the Indoor Environment of Greenhouses Used for Lentinula Edodes during Summer
, Xinfeng Jiang 1, Reyimei Maimaitituxun 1, Ayesha Entemark 1 and Hongjun Xu 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors examined the effect of different cooling methods on the micro-environment of three greenhouses used for mushroom cultivation. The aimed of the study was to determine which cooling method would have better cooling performance in the production of lentinula edodes in the Gobi region during the summer, creating a more suitable growth environment.
Please take note of the comments within the manuscript. The paper is a technical report therefore it should be written in reported speech, that is past tense.
Special attention should be paid to lines 139-147, 169-171, 206, 212-213 and 221-223.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing the manuscript. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Study On The Impact Of Different Cooling Methods On The Indoor Environment Of Lentinula Edodes Greenhouses During Summer”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes. Here are the answers to the questions:
Point 1:What type of shading? Just to mention a few: Shade cloth, Shade netting, Shade paint, Shade screens, Whitewash etc.
Response 1: We added a note "(shade netting)" to the 15th line.
Point 2:The quality of this figure is not good enough.
Response 2: We made changes to the image annotation of Figure 2(b).
Point 3: Please state clearly the number of sensors that were used.
Response 3: We added an explanation of the required number of instruments in lines 139-145.
Point 4: It would be better if the authors present the exact locations in meters than fraction of the greenhouses length and width. It is readable at all(139-147 lines).
Response 4: We have revised the content to: Six temperature sensors are installed in each greenhouse, placed at the following loca-tions: along the length at 8 m, 16 m, and 24 m; along the width at 7 m, at a height of 0.9 m above the ground; along the width at 3.5 meters and 10.5 m, along the length at 16 m, at a height of 0.9 m above the ground; and along the length at 16 m, width at 7 m, at a height of 2.5 m above the ground. Three air relative humidity sensors are installed in each greenhouse, located at positions along the length of 8 m, 16 m, and 24 m, and along the width of 7 m, at a height of 0.9 m above the ground.
Point 5: This sentence should rather read "Efficiency of cooling, n, is an analysis of the cooling performance among different types of greenhouse cooling systems".
Response 5: We have made changes to the content at lines 150-151.
Point 6: Please use clear measurements instead of fractions(169-171 lines).
Response 6: We have revised the content to: The daily temperature change in the room is represented by a three-point average of 8m, 16m, and 24m in the length direction, 7m in the span direction, and 0.9 meters above the ground(Racks for lentinula edodes along height 1/2).
Point 7: There is an error in the language in lines 193-194, change it to:During the testing period, the NVC, FPC, and WSC greenhouses experienced about 45.6%, 85.8%, and 78.6% of the temperature readings that were below 26 °C, respectively.
Response 7: Changes have been made according to the revision comments.
Point 8: The temperature range for mushroom growth should be added in lines 195-196.
Response 8: Based on the literature, we have made the following additions: The optimal temperature for lenticular edodes spore germination is 22-26℃.
Point 9: Is the time on line 206 reasonable?
Response 9: In the section "Cooling Efficiency of different cooling methods," I only used July 23rd as the subject of my analysis because this day is the "Great Heat" in the 24 solar terms of China.
Point 10: Lines 212 and 213 contradicts lines 221-223.I will suggest the authors delete lines 212 and 213.
Response 10: We have edited the content of this paragraph.
Point 11: In lines 249-251, there are language and content errors.
Response 11: We have already made modifications to that content.
Point 12: Why not use the actual length in meters than confusing readers with fractions? It makes understanding the paper very difficult.
Response 12: We made changes specifically for this content.
Point 13: Is this for the water pump alone? If not recast the sentence.
Response 13: This is the total cost, modified to: The cooling equipment required by the FPC includes two negative pressure fans, two evaporative cooling pads (each measuring 3.5m2), and one water pump, with a total value of up to $686.36.
Point 14: The references in the discussion section are insufficient, and it is necessary to insert additional references to validate the discussion points.
Response 14: We have added some theoretical basis(451-492 lines) and results from previous studies to the discussion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Your work highlights one of the major issues in the greenhouse industry (including mushroom cultivation), which is efficient cooling. The work is presenting some already studied tecnhiques and is comparing the results which are more or less already known. However we can recoginze that there is still field in a more thorough analysis. There are some major weaknesses in you work that needs to be reconsidered in oreder for the manuscript to be suitable for publιcation:
1. The work only presents experimental results without any theoretical background. In shading things are not so easy to be further analyzed but in the case of spraying between the two plastic sheets you should add which heat transfer mechanisms are triggered in order to have the temperature drop occurs by the measurements (we have both convection and conduction). You should mention which parameters of these equations are affected and there is a temperature drop. We cannot just observe the measurments we should know why these variations are mentioned between the systems. This is the most important point missing.
2. Beyond the energy consumption (which should be a different chapter in my opinion and not just a paragraph in economic analysis) you should mention water consumption for each system. Which part is being recycled and how much is lost. It is very important for systems using water as a cooling mean.
3. You should compare your work with other works in similar greenhouse cooling cases (desert regions, same cultivation) etc
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing the manuscript. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A Study On The Impact Of Different Cooling Methods On The Indoor Environment Of Lentinula Edodes Greenhouses During Summer”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes. Here are the answers to the questions:
Point 1:The work only presents experimental results without any theoretical background. In shading things are not so easy to be further analyzed but in the case of spraying between the two plastic sheets you should add which heat transfer mechanisms are triggered in order to have the temperature drop occurs by the measurements (we have both convection and conduction). You should mention which parameters of these equations are affected and there is a temperature drop. We cannot just observe the measurments we should know why these variations are mentioned between the systems. This is the most important point missing.
Response 1: We have added some theoretical basis for shading nets, natural ventilation cooling, fan and pad cooling, and water-sprinkling roof cooling between lines 448 -489.
Point 2: Beyond the energy consumption (which should be a different chapter in my opinion and not just a paragraph in economic analysis) you should mention water consumption for each system. Which part is being recycled and how much is lost. It is very important for systems using water as a cooling mean.
Response 2: We measured the total inflow rate of the water, with the wet curtain having an inflow rate of 1.9 m3/h, and the external spray having an inflow rate of 2.3m3/h. However, the water from the return flow directly enters the return water tank pipeline, making it impossible to accurately measure the actual return water quantity. Additionally, due to variations in sensible and latent heat of the water temperature, it is also challenging to calculate the water usage accurately. In the next step, we will conduct further research on the actual water consumption.Therefore, I sincerely apologize for not being able to make the suggested changes.
Point 3: You should compare your work with other works in similar greenhouse cooling cases (desert regions, same cultivation) etc
Response 3: We compared our research data with others' in lines 491-492,502-507, and 514.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved. Again, the theoretical background is not sufficiently presented. However it can be accepted since it presents a well prepared experimental research work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and expressing appreciation for your feedback on our revisions. Your comments are of great value and significance in enhancing our research and improving our paper. We have thoroughly examined the issues you raised and made the necessary modifications accordingly. Below is our response to the questions you raised:
Point 1:Please carefully check the accuracy of names and affiliations.
Response 1: We have checked and standardized the names of all the authors.
Point 2:Please confirm the format of variables (italic or not italic) and make it consistent, please check all the variables .
Response 2: We have made formatting corrections to Formula (1), Formula (2), and the corresponding annotations below the formulas.
Point 3: Please confirm if it’s correct(fifth paragraph in section 3.2.3).
Response 3: We have made changes to the previously disordered content.
Point 4: Please confirm if the background color is unnecessary and can be removed in the table(Table 1).
Response 4: We have made changes to the background and placement of Table 1.
Point 5: There are several errors in the references that need to be verified.
Response 5: I have confirmed that the corrected information is accurate.
Point 6: Refs. 8 and 16 are duplicated. Please remove duplicated references and rearrange all the references to appear in numerical order. Please ensure that there are no duplicated references.
Response 6: The duplicated references have been corrected, and the order of all references in the manuscript has also been rectified.
Point 7: Refs. 24 and 29 are duplicated. Please remove duplicated references and rearrange all the references to appear in numerical order. Please ensure that there are no duplicated references.
Response 7: The duplicated references have been corrected, and the order of all references in the manuscript has also been rectified.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
