Rated 3.5 of 5.
Level of importance:
Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:
Rated 3 of 5.
Level of completeness:
Rated 3 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:
Rated 3 of 5.
|ScienceOpen disciplines:||Engineering, Civil engineering, Environmental engineering, Microbiology & Virology, Life sciences|
|Keywords:||surface sampling, NAHA, mould, Environmental science, Sustainability in architecture and the built environment, UK, Denmark, active (aggressive) air sampling|
The authors have chosen to use a single method for determination of mould, the quantification of the N-acetylhexoaminidase (NAHA) activity supported by microscopy of the filter used for the NAHA activity determination. The limitation is that the use of NAHA activity determination is not a worldwide standard. Furthermore, the results are impossible to compare to results obtained from more widespread methods being agar based contact plates or air-samplers of the impact type using Petri dishes. Still the present manuscript is an important step forward.
General: When citations are (author, year) the list of references should be alphabetical and not in order of appearance as now.
Page 2: The citations ‘Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut 2003 a&b’ should rather be (Valbjørn, 2003; Koch and Nielsen, 2003), respectively. The references are:
Page 2, Section 2, first line: How were the 140 non-water damaged homes classified as such? Measurement of relative humidity? Humidity in construction parts?
Page 3, Study site: Any reason for the distribution between type and age of buildings?
Page 4, last paragraph, line 2: bad reference to a figure(?).
Page 4, last paragraph, line 4: “17 properties in Denmark”? Not mentioned in Materials and Methods! New data, or already published data? If published, a citation to publication is needed.
Page 5, paragraph marked (4): it was not the Danish Building Research Institute (= Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut) that brought forward the limits 25 RFU and 450 RFU, respectively. It was the private company Mycometer A/S, as clearly presented in 2003 publication from Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut. You need to find the background information for the use of these RFU levels, as it is not clear why you choose to use 25 and 450. How is the distribution of all your RFU readings? Mean and median values?
Page 6, first line below figure 2: “…1700 RFU are most likely indicative…”. It is a very fluffy argument, why not choose 1500, or 2000? How is the distribution of all your RFU readings? Mean and median values?
Page 7, Section 4 (Discussion): is not really a discussion – and Section is “Results and Discussion” – Section 4 is rather some concluding remarks. Rephrase and integrate into Section 3 or 5.1
Page 7, Paragraph numbered (2): A citation is needed to direct the reader to information about the Danish study. Where has it been published?
Page 8: It is recommended to show some statistical evidence for the RFU benchmarks presented.