Review of Interpreting Gaseous Pollution Data Regarding Heritage Objects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
I read your paper with interest, gaseous pollution next to relative humidity and temperature are for sure of great and increasing interest in the field of heritage materials. These topics are not new but their knowledge and evolution over time have changed as a consequence of climate changes, new materials also used in restoration etc. Risk assessment for example is a field that still need to be fully understood in heritage.
The paper is well articulated with a fair introduction, relevant references, and a good experimental structure. I appreciated the use of previous data to test different possible correlations among them and in the relation to specific materials.
My suggestion
Please revise the outline of Table 1 to help future reader, if possible acetic in one line etc. or create an acronym
pag 4 line 145 correct the sentence
pag 4 line 149 this is a strong affirmation, maybe you could add some references instead of generically said based on present knowledge. The impact of gaseous pollutant on heritage material and the related risk is in fact in relation also to other parameters such as relative humidity, materials present in the showcases or used for the restoration. Authors should add few sentences to remind those aspects.
Pag 5 table 3 and 4 if it s possible I would like to suggest to put the table titles in horizontal way, easy to
read
Pag, 8 figure 1 please add title to the axes and make numbers bigger
Page 10 Fig 3 I know that figure can be seen apart but please again make the related label more visible
Page 10 line 310 and line 313 pay attention to capital letters
Pag 11 line 330-334 please make it clear in text and in the figure caption that the points refer to and the red line. And the same for the figure 5
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment, same document includes repsonses to both reviewers
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is very interesting, however I present some recommendations to improve it
Title
“Interpreting Gaseous Pollution Data”
I think is very general,
then I recommend include the words heritage and review in the title
Line 20
“A survey of over 170 heritage institutions was carried out within the MEMORI project”
Describe that these studies correspond to indoor air pollution
Line 72
Has double final point (..), erase one (.)
Lines 89-90
Correct m3 to m3
Table 1
Improve edition
Present explanation of table before
Per example, it is necessary explain the meaning of the colours in the table.
Table 2
Standards for gas concentrations
Consider and justify because these standards are for ambient air and no necessarily for indoor environments??
Indicate concentration units like μg/m3
Table 3
Explain table information
The table needs to be mentioned in the text before being presented
Indicate concentration units like for all the pollutants not only for PM2.5
Use PM2.5 instead of PM2.5
Line 190
“Table 4 shows values for corrosion rate-based ISO standards [32,33]”.
Expand the description and importance of corrosion before presenting table 4
“mg/m2/yr”, ug/m3
check the correct writing of the units
Line 203 “Standards of air pollution limits and effects”
This line has no reason to exist. Please revise.
Lines 217- 224
Write the equation and describe the chemical formulas correctly.
Line 245
SHE
Explain meaning,
Standard Hydrogen Electrode??
Line 249
Indicate the scales and meaning of the axes shown in figure 1.
Line 272
Check units in figure 2
Line 290
“).” Has no reason to exist
Lines 336 and 345, figure 4 and figure 5, respectively
Indicate the correlation coefficient
Line 357
Explain the meaning of MDF
Line 366 Conclusions
In the manuscript, the word risk is mentioned several times and with emphasis on the conclusions, however at no time is its determination carried out.
It is recommended to adapt text and concepts.
I consider that the work is very good and that it can be published after carrying out a minor revision
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment, same document includes repsonses to both reviewers
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
