Microclimate and Mould Growth Potential of Air Cavities in Ventilated Wooden Façade and Roof Systems—Case Studies from Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research question of the paper is suggested to be concentrated. Judging from the topic, this article conducts research on air cavities on the microclimate condition. However, it took a lot of space to study the possibility of mould growth caused by the microclimate. Moreover, it needs to be strengthened in writing. The following suggestions are provided for the authors.

1. The title should reflect "mould".

2. What is the current state of research on this question around the world? Have predecessors conducted similar studies? What is your research innovation compared with other people?

3. The latest references, especially in the last three years, are not enough.

4. The format of all tables is incorrect.

5. In Section 2.3, it is suggested that the harm of mould growth to human health should be added.

6. The mould growth criteria in Section 2.3 should be developed independently. Is it considered to be combined with 3.4?

7. It should be explained why the VTT model is selected in this paper instead of just introducing the characteristics of the model.

8. Why are two types of sensors used to collect data? Are they consistent in accuracy? Which type of sensor is used to measure the data of the three building cases respectively?

9. The fitting curve in Figure 7 is not selected completely according to the upper limit value, please explain the reason for selection.

10. Please check the format and spelling carefully. There is no Section 3.5 in the manuscript. “4 Discussion” should be “5 discussion”

11. Please show the points in Figure 11 in a clearer way.

12. Results is not described sufficiently. Only figures and tables are not enough.

13. What is the applicability of the obtained Results?

14. Conclusion should correspond to the research questions in the introduction.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussion section should be supported according to the literature.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

he authors present their study focused on the problem of moisture measurement in wooden facades and roofs. Although this is a local study (Norway), the approach can be applied generally, internationally. I recommend the manuscript for publication. But I have one major reservation. It is necessary to evaluate the obtained data statistically. This is necessary nowadays and no results can be published without it. English language is fine.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No additional comments. It is suggested to be accepted after proofreading. 

Author Response

Thank you for the review. Minor language mistakes have been corrected throughout the paper.

We appreciate the positive suggestion to accept the paper.