Solar radiation model and optimization of asymmetric large-span externally insulated plastic greenhouses

Chuanqing Wang; Kai Liu; Hongyu Ma; Tianhua Li; Shaojie Wang; Dalong Zhang; Min Wei

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309734

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 6, 2024
12 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-09089Solar radiation model and optimization of asymmetric large-span externally insulated plastic greenhousesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wei, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research was funded by China Agriculture Research System (CARS-23)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 8. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have reviewed this article about optimization of solar radiation in plastic greenhouses in a location in China. I consider that the manuscript is interesting in its scope and objectives as it provides with valuable insights for development of agricultural facilities. Regarding the English language, I do not see any particular flaws in the article. That said, I consider that the method of finding the energy gains inside the greenhouse is not orthodox to say the least. First it seems that it is based in calculations and not in averaged official weather data. Secondly if the greenhouse is near transparent and its roofs are similar to horizontal surfaces with a (deliberately) neglected curvature, it is strange to distinguish between south and north. Then a not very detailed geometric method of sunbeams is used which apparently disregards the possibility of clouded sky and we are not informed of the respective probability of overcast sky versus clear sky. The term daylighting here is also misleading since we are dealing with thermal radiation in this case and illumination or visual perception seems out of the question. I understand that the authors have used a model of calculation that might be common in China but it is not diffused outside this country and therefore it is not objectively validated. It is surprising however, the high level of coincidence between the calculated and measured data in a just few days of monitoring. I would prefer to have all the matter checked against weather data of radiation unless they are not available. Finally, the former input of radiation is introduced in a kind of black-box energy or entropy simulator which is not very well known, at least outside China. The results seem perhaps adequate but we do not know for instance what will happen with other greenhouse configurations or in different geographical areas. Therefore, the tools presented and discussed are not entirely satisfactory in my humble opinion. For the rest of the article the improvements and adaptions suggested to this greenhouse typology are minimal and do not entail a significant design process in which real advances for the construction and detailing of greenhouses are produced or enforced Reviewer #2: This paper use the NSGA-II to maximizing solar raidation interception and minimizing the coefficient of variation. The application of this work is very interesting and this problem come from the real world engineering design application. However, this paper is very hard to read. The authors must be rewrite in some part before publication. My comments are below: 1) I reccommend the author to write the objective function in the standard mathematical optimization form. Is this work has 3 objective function? (Eq. 17, Eq. 19 and Eq. 21) I think the author must rewrite it in standard mathematic optimization form. It very hard to understand what is Eq. 17 19 and 27 and which objective are minimization or maximization. 2) The design lower limit and upper limit of each design variable must be shown in the mathematical form. 3) The convergence metric such as hypervolume must be shown to show the generation of the optimization method is enough. 4) The Parallel coordinate plot of the Pareto solution must be shown to show the relationship between the input parameter and output parameter of the Pareto solutions. 5) Table 2 is very hard to understand. If the author want the show the results of the single-objective optimization compared to the multi-objective optimization, I reccomend the author added the results of the single-objective optimization to the Pareto solution plot. Then the reader can understand the different. 6) This problem has 3 objectives, how or which criteria that the authors selected the design point from the Pareto solution? Reviewer #3: Review Report of PONE-D-24-09089 a) The novelty of the greenhouse design compared with existing designs may be highlighted. b) The research gaps may be mentioned pointwise at the end of Introduction. c) Authors may state the sky model considered in the radiation modeling. The important equations may be referred in the text. d) The model equations of the greenhouse may be referred in the text. e) The convergence curve of the NSGA optimization may be added and discussed. f) The major findings may be compared with published works. g) The limitations and future scope may be added in Conclusions. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r001
Revision 1
24 May 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your hard work and patience. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments, and the following is a point-by-point response to the comments. For Reviewer #1: 1 Question: That said, I consider that the method of finding the energy gains inside the greenhouse is not orthodox to say the least. First it seems that it is based in calculations and not in averaged official weather data. Secondly if the greenhouse is near transparent and its roofs are similar to horizontal surfaces with a (deliberately) neglected curvature, it is strange to distinguish between south and north. Answer: Thank you for the advice. The main models for outdoor solar radiation include the HOTTEL model[1], the ASHRAE model[2], the Liu and Jordan model[3], the Erbs model[4], and the Bouguer and Berlage formulas[5]. Among these, the Liu and Jordan model, the ASHRAE model, and the Erbs model are widely used. However, these models are based on radiation data from the United States and thus have regional applicability. On the other hand, the Bouguer and Berlage formulas can calculate solar radiation on horizontal surfaces if the local atmospheric transparency is clearly defined. Given that the atmospheric transparency used in this study is based on the latest observational research, it is feasible to adopt the Bouguer and Berlageis formulas. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding. This study does not intentionally overlook curvature. Some researchers believe that, under fixed structural parameters, the radiation interception variations among solar greenhouses with various arched frameworks are relatively small[6-8]. Additionally, the discrepancy between the parabolic fitting equation and the actual frame curve is small. Thus, we use the parabolic equation as the roof equation, dividing the roof into south and north lighting roofs based on the ridge. 2 Question: Then a not very detailed geometric method of sunbeams is used which apparently disregards the possibility of clouded sky and we are not informed of the respective probability of overcast sky versus clear sky. Answer: I sincerely apologize for any lack of clarity in conveying the content of the article. The classification of weather conditions primarily uses atmospheric transparency, clearness index, and cloud cover[4, 9, 10]. This study employs a cloud cover model, please refer to lines 166-173. Furthermore, the cloud cover data used for model validation is obtained from the China Meteorological Data Service Center, which is more accurate than manual assessment. 3 Question: The term daylighting here is also misleading since we are dealing with thermal radiation in this case and illumination or visual perception seems out of the question. Answer: We acknowledge that "daylighting" is inappropriate and have made corrections in the paper accordingly. 4 Question: I understand that the authors have used a model of calculation that might be common in China but it is not diffused outside this country and therefore it is not objectively validated. Answer: The model used in this study is widely applied in simulations of Chinese solar greenhouses, as referenced by Ma et al[11]. Additionally, Xu[12], Tian[13], and Xu[14] have empirically validated the model, demonstrating a good fit. 5 Question: It is surprising however, the high level of coincidence between the calculated and measured data in a just few days of monitoring. I would prefer to have all the matter checked against weather data of radiation unless they are not available. Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have uploaded the raw data. It should be noted that the empirical data was recorded every 15 minutes. This study uses the envelope method to validate the measured total radiation at observation points in the 13m+7m greenhouse against simulated values at 30-minute intervals. As a result, we can observe a high degree of agreement between the calculated and measured data. Additionally, the study includes observations from March to December 2021, selecting the solstices and equinox (summer solstice, autumn equinox, and winter solstice) for validation, which provides a more representative analysis. Prior to this study, the influence of azimuth angle on the projected path equation for thermal insulation was not taken into account. After recalculating, the formula can be found in lines 246-271. To further demonstrate the accuracy of the insulation projection equation, empirical data on shadow contours were supplemented on March 22nd and April 22nd. As elaborated in lines 400-417 the experimental fitting yielded satisfactory results. 6 Question: Finally, the former input of radiation is introduced in a kind of black-box energy or entropy simulator which is not very well known, at least outside China. Answer: We utilized an empirical formula for radiation transmittance, which is suitable for various transparent covering materials. Previous researchers have employed computational methods, as indicated by[11, 15]. In the future, we plan to explore additional international methods for simulation. 7 Question: The results seem perhaps adequate but we do not know for instance what will happen with other greenhouse configurations or in different geographical areas. Answer: This study focuses solely on structural optimization in the Jinan area of Shandong province. However, we have already begun analyzing the impact of orientation, shape, and position on greenhouses. Due to constraints in manuscript length, further exploration of these aspects is planned for future research. Reviewer #2: 1 Question: I recommend the author to write the objective function in the standard mathematical optimization form. Is this work has 3 objective function? (Eq. 17, Eq. 19 and Eq. 21) I think the author must rewrite it in standard mathematic optimization form. It very hard to understand what is Eq. 17 19 and 27 and which objective are minimization or maximization. Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We've selected cumulative radiation interception, average radiation interception, and coefficient of variation as our objective functions. Following your advice, we've restructured these functions into standard mathematical optimization forms, as elaborated in lines 311-322. 2 Question: The design lower limit and upper limit of each design variable must be shown in the mathematical form. According to your nice suggestions, I've made the necessary adjustments as per your guidance. Please kindly refer to lines 344-356 for the details. 3 Question: The convergence metric such as hypervolume must be shown to show the generation of the optimization method is enough. Answer: We have already utilized the hypervolume indicator to evaluate the algorithm's performance. For further details, please refer to lines 539-551. 4 Question: The Parallel coordinate plot of the Pareto solution must be shown to show the relationship between the input parameter and output parameter of the Pareto solutions. Answer: Following your suggestion, we have gone ahead and used a parallel coordinates plot to illustrate the Pareto solutions. Additionally, we have conducted an analysis of the relationship between these solutions' input and output parameters. You will find more information about this in lines 553-561. 5 Question: Table 2 is very hard to understand. If the author want the show the results of the single-objective optimization compared to the multi-objective optimization, I recommend the author added the results of the single-objective optimization to the Pareto solution plot. Then the reader can understand the different. Answer: We've sincerely taken your advice to heart and made the necessary modifications to the images, along with providing a detailed analysis. For further insights, please refer to lines 564-604. 5 Question: This problem has 3 objectives, how or which criteria that the authors selected the design point from the Pareto solution? Answer: We've employed the entropy-weighted TOPSIS method to select the optimal solution from the Pareto frontier. For specific details, please refer to lines 362-370. Additionally, insights into the analysis of the results can be found in lines 590-604. Reviewer #3: 1 Question: The research gaps may be mentioned pointwise at the end of Introduction. Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. This paper has outlined the gaps in previous research. For details, please refer to lines 100-104. 2 Question: Authors may state the sky model considered in the radiation modeling. The important equations may be referred in the text. Answer: Following your helpful suggestions, this study has supplemented the isotropic sky model , Bouguer’s and Berlage’s equations. For details, please refer to lines 149-165. 3 Question: The model equations of the greenhouse may be referred in the text. Answer: Following your suggestion, the reference formulas for the model equations have been supplemented. For details, please refer to lines 158-161,203-219. 4 Question: The convergence curve of the NSGA optimization may be added and discussed. Answer: According to your nice suggestions, we have sincerely taken your advice and produced the HV convergence curves for the objective functions. The results can be found in lines 538-544. 5 Question: The major findings may be compared with published works. Answer: According to your nice suggestions, we have incorporated the additional discussion content. For detailed information, please refer to lines 577-589. 6 Question: The limitations and future scope may be added in Conclusions. Answer: Following your suggestion, this paper has added the limitations and future scope to the conclusion. For details, please refer to lines 645-651. References 1. Hottel HC. A simple model for estimating the transmittance of direct solar radiation through clear atmospheres. Sol Energy. 1976;18(2):129-34. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/0038-092X(76)90045-1. 2. American Society of Heating R, Air Conditioning Engineers I. ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals. Ashrae Handbook of Fundamentals. 1972. 3. Liu BYH, Jordan RC. The Interrelationship and Characteristic Distribution of Direct, Diffuse and Total Solar Radiation. Sol Energy. 1960;4(3):1-19. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/0038-092X(60)90062-1. 4. D. G, Erbs, and, S. A, Klein, and, et al. Estimation of the diffuse radiation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly-average global radiation. Sol Energy. 1982;28(4):293-302. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/0038-092X(82)90302-4. 5. Handbook SEU. Japan Solar Energy Society. Ohmsha, Ltd. 1985:10-88. 6. Xuan WY. Mathematical model establishment and analysis for greenhouse surface curve. Tianjin Agric Sci. 2006;12(4):3. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6500.2006.04.016. 7. Li JN, Ma CW, Zhao SM, Cui WH, X N. Light environment comparison of solar greenhouse with different roof shapes and inclination angles. Xinjiang Agricultural Sci. 2014;51(6):7. https://doi.org/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2014.06.004. 8. Tong GH, Christopher DM, Li TL, Wang TL. Passive solar energy utilization: A review of cross-section building parameter selection for Chinese solar greenhouses. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2013;26:540-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.026. 9. Duffie JA, Beckman WA, Blair N. Solar engineering of thermal processes, photovoltaics and wind: John Wiley & Sons; 2020. 10. Reindl DT, Beckman WA, Duffie JA. Diffuse fraction correlations. Sol Energy. 1990;45(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(90)90060-P. 11. Ma CW, Zhao SM, Cheng JY, Wang N, Jiang YC, Wang SY, et al. On Establishing Light Environment Model in Chinese Solar Greenhouse. J Shenyang Agric Univ. 2013;44(05):513-7. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2013.05.001. 12. Xu DM, Li YM, Zhang Y, Xu H, Li TL, Liu XA. Effects of orientation and structure on solar radiation interception in Chinese solar greenhouse. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242002. 13. Tian D, Li Y, Zhao S, Wu Q, Ma C, Song W. An Analysis of the Influence of Construct Parameters on the Solar Radiation Input in an Insulated Plastic Greenhouse. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030510. 14. Xu HJ, Cao YF, Li YR, Gao J, Jiang WJ, Zou ZR. Establishment and application of solar radiation model in solar greenhouse. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 2019;35(7):10. https://doi.org/10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.07.020. 15. Yan QS, Zhao QZ. Thermal process of building. Beijing: China construction industry press.; 1986. 19-20 p. We appreciate your consideration and constructive comments on our manuscript and we look forward to hearing from your positive answer. With our sincere respects. Dr. Pro. Min Wei Dr. Chuanqing Wang Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r002
12 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-09089R1Solar radiation model and optimization of asymmetric large-span externally insulated plastic greenhousesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfied most of my queries, still I do not see nephographs or false colour maps of the distribution of radiation in plan inside the greenhouse Reviewer #2: I agreed with the author answer. Now, this paper is suitable to publish. Reviewer #3: Authors have addressed my review comments successfully. However, the following comment was not addressed- The novelty of the greenhouse design compared with existing designs may be highlighted. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r003
Revision 2
17 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your hard work and patience. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments, and the following is a response to the comments. Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfied most of my queries, still I do not see nephographs or false colour maps of the distribution of radiation in plan inside the greenhouse Answer: Thank you for the advice. Critten's findings suggest that the length has little influence on the greenhouse's light transmission in the east-west direction [1]. Hence, this study treats the greenhouse length as infinite and focuses only on how its span affects the light environment. According to the solar radiation model, the spatial distribution of noon solar radiation for different structures of greenhouses on the winter solstice can be seen in Figure 8 (line 539). Fig 8. Spatial distribution of different structured greenhouses at noon on the winter solstice. (a): ridge height 5.3, 12m+8m; (b): ridge height 5.3, 11m+9m; (c): ridge height 5.8, 12m+8m; (d): Ridge height 5.8, 11m+9m. Reviewer #3: Authors have addressed my review comments successfully. However, the following comment was not addressed-The novelty of the greenhouse design compared with existing designs may be highlighted. Answer: Following your helpful suggestions, the innovation of optimizing greenhouses compared with existing greenhouses is summarized as follows: This study proposes a new solar radiation model incorporating the projection path equations of the insulation quilts, combined with a multi-objective optimization method to optimize the structural parameters of large-span plastic greenhouses suitable for Jinan, China. The results indicate that the optimal greenhouse configuration features a span of 20 meters, a height of 6.97 meters, and a north-facing roof projection length of 7.44 meters. Compared to the initial greenhouse, cumulative radiation increased by 3.37%, and light distribution uniformity significantly improved. Please kindly refer to lines 605-615 and 641-647 for the details. References 1. Critten DL. The effect of house length on the light transmissivity of single and multispan greenhouses. J Agric Eng Res. 1985;32(2):163-72. We appreciate your consideration and constructive comments on our manuscript and we look forward to hearing from your positive answer. With our sincere respects. Dr. Pro. Min Wei Dr. Chuanqing Wang Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r004
19 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor Solar radiation model and optimization of asymmetric large-span externally insulated plastic greenhouses PONE-D-24-09089R2 Dear Dr. Wang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-09089R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309734.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .