Indoor Air Quality Campaign in an Occupied Low-Energy House with a High Level of Spatial and Temporal Discretization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A worthwhile study but writing and defining of terms needs to be improved. There are also qualitative statements that should be backed with evidence and quantitative metrics. See pdf for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
IAQ campaign in an occupied low-energy house with a high level of spatial and temporal discretization
The research applies science to perform an experimental evaluation of IAQ in a low energy house.
The authors need to make some improvement of the manuscript. My suggestions and comments are shown below:
General comments
A general concern is that the measurement campaigns are quite short (8 and 5 days), nevertheless measurement are extent related to the number of parameters measured which justifies the interest of the research. The comprehensive approach, measuring several parameters could be the initial step of an overall methodology to approach IAQ, this could be interesting, I suggest the authors to explore this idea in the perspectives.
Specific comments
- Abstract: there should be 1 sentence to disclose the scientific gaps, before showing your research objective. 1-2 sentences to clearly and highly summarise the major contribution of your research, at the end of the Abstract.
- The Abstract should include the background, scientific gaps, straightforward objective, methodology, results, and future potentials. Please revise the abstract, incorporating these suggestions.
- Line 101: kwh; k is lowercase.
- Line 102: q4Pa, is an index in French regulation, in other countries is not known, please, explain it briefly.
- Line 103: q50 is an index of British regulation, please, explain it and explain why you are using these too indexes from different countries.
- In Methods: the definition of the ventilation system (doble flux? is control demand? Is there a heat recovery?) and the indoor materials finishes are not sufficiently defined (impact of material is important in VOC and formaldehyde), year of construction of the house (if it is new, materials emission is high)
- In Methods: It would be interesting to have more information about the KIMO DBM measurement, including photographs.
- Results: Figure 4, I would prefer to see the % under 30 and over 70 detached.
- Line 394, are all the opening of windows registered during the campaigns? The ventilation system is not clearly explained.
- Conclusions: First and second paragraphs are not conclusions.
As stated in the general comments, the research presented 2 measurement campaigns which are short. In this sense, the greatest value of the work falls on the methodology followed, to collect all the information. However, the correlation between the parameters with the building ventilation system and the materials contaminants emission is not analysed.
Comments for author File: Comments.odt
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the edits. Please see the attached for additional clarifications needed.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer1,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: Usually the structure of the abstract is not included “Background and gaps, Methodology, Results.”
In “Background and gaps. The topic of indoor air quality (IAQ) in low-energy buildings has 10 received increasing interest over the past few years. IAQ studies are often based on two measure- 11 ment points and on passive measurements over 1-week.” I believe the gap is not clearly expressed in this sentence.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer2,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
