Indoor Air Quality in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence: Sampling, Assessment and Improvement Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
In P6L193, the authors mention “the number of visitors”. How to take the influence from visitors into consideration? The number of visitors, especially during Summer and Holidays. It will be also better to have both weekday and weekend data analysis separated.
More explanations and analysis needed for several figures, i.e., Figure 7.
Are there any literatures during COVID-19? Due to the pandemic, the museum should be closed for a long period.
List chemical reactions related to temperature and humidity.
Figure 6: use different shapes to distinguish temperature and relative humidity.
Figure 10: From Figure 10, the CO2 concentration trend should have significant correlation with the number of visitors. Add the trend for the number of visitors in the Gallery to Figure 10.
Since the ventilation system exchanges indoor and outdoor air, how this exchange influences the indoor air quality? It’s good to consider the geolocation of the museum. Are there factories near it?
Specific comments
P1L43-44: why water vapor contributes to CO2 concentration?
P4L105: air velocity has both speed and direction. May point it out.
P4L119: “deals” to “deal”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, first, the recommendation values for the quality of the indoor air environment are described based on the literature. Next, the survey procedure, measurement method, characteristics of the measured space, etc. are shown in detail. Afterwards, the measurement results were presented and the air quality was evaluated in comparison with the acceptable values. The conclusion presents measures for inspection and maintenance to prevent air quality from deteriorating. This article is well structured, has clear conclusions, and even mentions measures for inspection and maintenance. It is evaluated as a useful reference for those concerned.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I find the manuscript provides informative approach in regulating indoor air quality (IAQ) in the museum setting. A proposed methodology for improving IAQ is helpful. The authors may have to consider particles concentration such as PM2.5 which can be related to biological pollutants from their attachment to PM2.5 in an indoor environment. Particle is more hazardous to health than gaseous pollutants in indoor settings.
Below are some minor comments
(1) Line 37: "keep IAQ" should be "keep good IAQ"
(2) Line 73: "As regards" better with "With regard to"
(3) Line 97: "As regards" changed to "Regarding" or "As for"
(4) Line 104: "as regards" changed to "for"
(5) Line 121: "as regards" changed to "relating to"
(6) Line 132: "ANSES (National Agency French for health, food environmental and work safety)". This acronym should be in full name in French and then English equivalent (National Agency for health, food environmental and work safety)
(7) Line 461-464: The CO2 values of 540 ppm (in the presence of visitors) and 1049 ppm (museum closed) should be the other way around 1049 ppm for museum open with visitors and 540 ppm when the museum is closed
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
