As requested by the chairman, similarities with previous publications have been removed.We did not strikethrough the text which has been removed from the manuscript so that it can be seen that the revised version of the paper does not exceed the limit of 6 pages. However, all changes have been marked in red colour.
Changes to the paper as suggested by the reviewers:Firstly, we would like to thank all reviewers for the help in order to improve the quality of our paper.While reviewer #2 and reviewer #3 proposed suggestions for minor revisions, reviewer #4 recommended major revisions to our paper. Based on these suggestions, we made the following changes to our paper, summarised as follows:• Reviewer #2: As suggested by the reviewer, we provide additional data to further and better describe the circumstances of characterising PV panels under harsh outdoor environmental conditions. More precisely, we added a new subsection entitled "Temperature Gradients". In this new subsection, we analyse in more detail the temperature variations within the same PV panel during characterisation under both, common and harsh outdoor environmental conditions. We are certain that this additional data helps to better understand and clarify the impact of temperatures below zero degree Celsius on IRT imaging techniques. • Reviewer #3: As recommended by the reviewer, we added more test data. We also extended the discussion on the impacts of harsh outdoor environmental conditions. • Reviewer #4: As requested by the reviewer, we revised the description of the nature of the problem and why it is challenging to characterise PV panel with the help of IRT imaging techniques under outdoor environmental conditions. We now emphasise more the potential influences of changes in ambient conditions on the correct detection of defects in PV panels. We also revised the description of our method and the meaning of the term "synchronous". The added subsection "Temperature Gradients" should help to better understand the temperature values shown in Tables I and II and how temperature differences are analysed. We improved the structure of the paper in order to clarify all presented information and hope that, in this way, addressed all the shortcomings mentioned by the reviewer.In summary, during the past weeks, we made the requested and suggested changes to our paper. In particular, we reduced greatly any similarities with our previous publications and included additional data to describe the importance of our work.Again, we wish to thank all the reviewers and the chairs for their comments on our work. We are certain that their comments have helped to improve the quality of our paper.