Rated 3.5 of 5.
Level of importance:
Rated 5 of 5.
Level of validity:
Rated 3 of 5.
Level of completeness:
Rated 2 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:
Rated 3 of 5.
|ScienceOpen disciplines:||Environmental studies|
|Keywords:||Lime plaster; Hygrothermal simulations; mould growth; surface relative humidity conditions., Energy and health|
The subject studied by the authors is of high importance and they have conducted extensive study comprising both models and experimental work with a considerable number of analyses and the results are well discussed with a particular attention to references. Some scientific and editorial improvements are needed in the manuscript to be more understandable and followable.
Introduction should be concise and be written in the order ending with the gap in the literature and aim of the study.
Lime cycle and related explanations are unnecessary to give because there will be no correlation later in the study.
Long explanation of lime is not needed. I recommend to delete this part.
Please make the introduction concise and clear. Authors should avoid repetition. Authors should briefly explain why lime is favorable in a few sentences and what is lack in the field without repetition. The section should be named as Results and Discussion, if not where is the discussion?
How this life span is calculated in this reference? What about more than 2000 years old Roman mortars.
reference is needed
please correct improvising
Methodology should be described briefly. It is estimated that the first study is modeling, the second study is in-situ examination and the last study is experimental work. If it is correct, please explain it clearly.
Abbreviation should be defined clearly when it is used for the first time.
Please indicate name of the equipment in a, b, c, d, e in Figure 5.
Table 332 should go to results or appendices section.
What is Language Lab? Why is it relevant?
What does sulphate phase of the lime plaster mortar formation mean? Please revise.
Which type of microscope is used should be defined in methods section.
Figure 32. If it is an stereomicroscope (or not), the magnification should be defined for all images. Quality of the images should be improved.
Polarized optical microscopy? scanning electron microscopy? section 4.2
Conclusions should be reflected by results. I recommend rewriting the manuscript with clear objectives and results therefore conclusions can be inferred better.