Next Article in Journal
The Southern Hemisphere Blocking Index Revisited
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Visitor Influx on the Indoor Climate of the Milan Cathedral
Previous Article in Journal
Interdecadal Change in the Relationship between the Winter Siberian High and Summer Tropical Cyclone Genesis Frequency over the Western North Pacific
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Invasive-Monitoring Methodology for the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts on Istrian Stone Surfaces in Venice
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The European Standard EN 15757 Concerning Specifications for Relative Humidity: Suggested Improvements for Its Revision

Atmosphere 2022, 13(9), 1344; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13091344
by Dario Camuffo 1,*, Antonio Della Valle 1 and Francesca Becherini 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Atmosphere 2022, 13(9), 1344; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13091344
Submission received: 22 July 2022 / Revised: 14 August 2022 / Accepted: 17 August 2022 / Published: 23 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Atmospheric Environment and Cultural Heritage Protection)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The European standard EN 15757 introduced a novel dynamic concept to identify a  "safe" range of RH based on recent indoor climate history. Even though the standard has been shown useful it has not been used to the extent it deserves. 

The paper presents three modifications and and a change of terminology that would make the standard more usable and the fundamental concepts more clear.

The paper sets a good example in both scientific stringency and presentation. It can be published without major changes.

I have two minor concerns:

The 18 case studies have a center of gravity in Italy. It would have been interesting to see data from objects in northern Europe. 

The quality/resolution of the graphs is poor. I appreciate the intention to show all objects in one graph, but for the sake of clarity I would suggest to use a conventional graphs for each object.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The last sentence on page 8 of the manuscript is incomplete.

2. In Figure 4 of the manuscript, the results of the two methods should be shown in the same figure to illustrate the accuracy of the method.

3. The ordinate in Figure 1 lacks units.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop