Legs Geometry Influence on the Performance of the Thermoelectric Module
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, thank you very much for the submitted article. The publication is consistent. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions:
The research methodology is correct. The authors refer to empirical research. And rightly so. Nevertheless, the presented model is not complicated. Hence, it was appropriate to ask for an experiment. If not, check the model in other leading software, eg ANSYS.
The results are clearly and clearly described. Although I will emphasize the model is not complicated. The question is also about its dynamics. Is this a time intelligence model? How was the set temperature obtained?
Best regards.
Author Response
The authors are deeply thankful and recognize the patience of the Reviewer in carefully revising the manuscript, which certainly has improved the quality of the final version of our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work presents interesting results when comparing the performance of different thermoelectric modules as a function of shape and with different dimensions of length and width. The authors presented an entire theoretical review and results in a format that is clear to readers. However, the manuscript is very similar to the one presented in this link https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmats.2020.595955/full. With that, I suggest authors rewrite similar parts, as this problem can compromise the quality of the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
The authors are deeply thankful and recognize the patience of the Reviewer in carefully revising the manuscript, which certainly has improved the quality of the final version of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is well-organized. I have two minor comments to improve the readability of the paper:
1- The FE simulation specifications are good to be summarized in a table such as the mesh size and shape, object dimensions, region dimensions and etc.
2- There are some acronyms in the text that never have been defined before such as ZT. Please define them.
Author Response
The authors are deeply thankful and recognize the patience of the Reviewer in carefully revising the manuscript, which certainly has improved the quality of the final version of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper entitled „Legs geometry influence on the performance of the thermoelectric module” focuses on the impact of leg geometry on the electrical power harvested by thermoelectric modules based on Bi2Te3. COMSOL Multiphysics was used to simulate the behavior of the thermoelectric generator while the results obtained for square-filled shapes are compared with the real ones. The experimental part is consistently revealed and explained while the results are understandably submitted and sufficiently illustrated. The conclusion summarizes the aforementioned results. In my opinion, the paper should be interesting from a scientific and practical point of view.
I would like to recommend the publication of the paper publication after some changes concerning the following issues:
1. More quantitative values could be given in the abstract; please, avoid using abbreviations in the abstract;
2. Please, indicate all abbreviations used in the text;
3. The introduction section should be more focused on the designs of the thermoelectric modules revealed in the experimental part.
4. “The contributions and novelty” formulated by the authors at the end of the introduction sound more like a summary of the results. A clear aim of the study should be formulated.
5. The term “concentrated sunlight” should be explained in the text;
6. The reference style in the text is not uniform (see page 4 lines 190-191)
7. Table 2 should be improved. The measuring units should be put in the first line since they are the same.
8. Since both p-type and n-type Bi2Te3 are pointed in table 3, the properties of which type are indicated. The only difference is in Seebeck Coefficient.
9. The measuring units should be all in one and the same style including the brackets.
10. Where applicable, the obtained results can be compared with other similar studies;
Author Response
The authors are deeply thankful and recognize the patience of the Reviewer in carefully revising the manuscript, which certainly has improved the quality of the final version of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations. Best regards.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper may be accepted for publication.
