Compared Environmental Lifecycle Performances of Earth-Based Walls to Drive Building Envelope Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted manuscript presents results from the environmental impact of eight earthen walls within an Italian scope. The presented results are relevant to the sustainable and green construction sector as they present quantitative results that can be used as an argument for using such materials in a contemporary context. The manuscript has some issues to revise, and they are listed in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the paper the Authors undertake interesting and important topic referring to earth-based walls as a sustainable and circular construction element. The researches presented in the article are very important and up to date despite the fact that, as Authors admited, earthen construction is one of the eldest known building practices. The Authors presented the environmental performance of several earthbased wall systems in the context of its life cycle. Authors concluded that use of earth based walls allowed to avoid carbon emission, water footprint and energy in whole production chain. The above mentioned benefits vary between the type of earth based walls, nethertheless, compared to conventional building technologies, earth wall systems, combined with thin layers of thermal insulations, have better thermal performances and lower environmental impacts. Authors point at limitations of some earth-base walls like use in seismic-prone areas and the directions of future researches like the effect of reinforcing elements and structures in the wall systems.
However, authors should take into account the minor suggestions that the aim of the work should be exposed and highlighted in the abstract
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have studied a comparison of the environmental performance of eight earth-based wall systems with similar thermal performance, through a life cycle thinking approach. The manuscript is well-written and well-organized and should be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
- Line 12, the first sentence in the Abstract, "Raw earth has useful applications in contemporary buildings as a sustainable and circular construction material" should be mentioned in the Introduction part.
- Line 15, Life Cycle Assessment should be life cycle assessment. The capital letters are not needed.
- In line 39, the term "VOC" should be written in full before its abbreviations, the abbreviations should be put between brackets when mentioned for the first time. The same is applied to the "LCA", Life cycle assessment, in line 46. This should be applied to any other abbreviations present in the text.
- The paragraph mentioned in line 135 to line 138, "In the following paragraph 2.1 each technology will be described. In paragraph 2.2, the main thermal properties and the calculation used to assess the thermal performances of the wall solution will be reported. Finally, in paragraph 2.3 the methodology used for the life cycle assessment will be explained." is not necessary and should be removed.
- Line 183, it is mentioned, "In this work......", also in line 207, and line 269" In this work....". The word "work" should be replaced with "part" or "section". The same should be applied to the word "study" in "In this study", mentioned in line 227, line 256, line 466, etc.
- The Conclusions part is very long, not concise, and Must Be rewritten and shortened.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language of the text needs a minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle very well written. Details of the review are provided in the appendix.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated the suggested changes and corrected the manuscript errors. The document is viable for publishing.
