Quantifying the Relationship Between Mean Radiant Temperature and Indoor Air Temperature Across Building Orientations in Hot and Dry Steppe Climates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic and presents relevant data; however, it requires significant improvements in clarity and depth of analysis. And need to to better highlight the study’s contribution and originality;

There is significant redundancy throughout the manuscript, with several pieces of information repeated across multiple sections. The authors should revise the text to be more concise and avoid unnecessary repetition.

The abstract should include a brief description of the methodology used.

References should be cited in sequential numerical order within the manuscript (i.e., [1], [2], [3], etc.).

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 contain repeated content already presented in the introduction. Additionally, much of the material here belongs in the introduction rather than the methodology. The authors are advised to focus these sections on the specific data and methods used in the study.  

The caption for Figure 1 should be revised for clarity.

The methodology section should clearly justify the number of houses selected and explicitly list all selection criteria, avoiding vague expressions such as "several criteria were taken into account." Each criterion should be briefly explained to show its relevance. The authors should also clarify whether the houses were located in the same neighborhood or across different parts of the city, and, if possible, include a map indicating their locations.

The study compares air temperature and mean radiant temperature within houses, which are influenced by factors such as construction materials, window-to-wall ratio, shading, and HVAC use. While the authors state that the assessed houses share similar features, these characteristics are not specified. This lack of detail weakens the validity of the results, as it is unclear what specific features the findings apply to. The authors should clearly describe the shared characteristics to ensure the results are interpretable and applicable.

The authors should be more specific about the data collected. They need to list the measured variables, the instruments used, and the descriptive data collected. It appears that data were collected at a single point in time for each space; however, this is not clearly stated in the manuscript. If this is the case, it should be explicitly mentioned. If data were collected at different times within the same space, the authors should specify the dates, frequency, and the total number of observations or tests conducted. This information should be provided clearly while avoiding redundancy with content presented in lines 306–338.

Lines 294–297: The tests and observations should be clearly and separately described

Lines 307–309: This section contains redundant information

Line 316: The authors should indicate whether there was any direct solar exposure during the measurement of mean radiant temperature (MRT), and specify the exact locations within the rooms where the measurements were taken.

Lines 347–365: This content is redundant and should be merged into the methodology section to avoid repetition.

Line 327: The use of the CBE Tool’s psychrometric (air temperature) approach should be briefly described.

Table 1: This table should be divided into two separate tables—one presenting Environmental Variables and the other Individual Variables.

The results presented by the authors regarding the correlation between air temperature and mean radiant temperature are insufficient to demonstrate the accuracy and strength of the relationship. To support their findings, the authors should include a scatterplot to visually represent the linear relationship between the two variables. Additionally, they should analyze whether the correlation is strong (r) and evaluate the goodness of fit (R²).

The authors state that the findings contribute to the development of more adaptable and sustainable building designs; however, the only design parameter examined in the study is orientation. Moreover, the research questions outlined in lines 143–148 are not fully addressed by the analysis presented. The examination of thermal comfort conditions by house orientation yields expected and well-known results. The authors should be more specific about the manuscript's objectives, clearly define its contribution, and clarify its originality in relation to existing literature.

The discussion section is almost a repetition of the  results sections. The authors should revise the discussion to provide further explanation of the findings, compare them with existing literature, highlight the study’s contribution and originality, and acknowledge its limitations. In contrast, the conclusion is overly long; some parts of it would be more appropriate in the discussion section .

In lines 641–642, the authors state that “these empirical MRT-Ai…. regression slopes and MRT/Ai ranges aid in selecting glazing area, shading geometry, thermal mass deployment (U-Value), and HVAC strategies tailored to each orientation.” However, the manuscript does not explain or demonstrate how these results can inform such design strategies. The authors should clarify this provide explanation (maybe within the discussion section)  to support and justify this conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains many grammatical and punctuation errors. I recommend a thorough review of the English language to improve clarity.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
sorry, but I don't understand your research aims, I would really appreciated it if you could insert an "aims section" and an methodology flowchart. Moreover, I don't understand the novelty of your research, because the role of MRT in PMV is well known in research field. 
A correlation or linear regression between MRT / PMV and Tair/PMV should be useful. 
Moreover, I don't understand the role of walls, windows and ceilings.

I suggest to change "Ai" with "Ta" or "Ta,i" (Temperature, air indoor). "Ai" is a unusual nomenclature.

Finally, your article shows that orienting rooms to the south is not a good solution. This may be obvious in hot and dry steppe climates, but it is becoming increasingly common in other climates, such as the Mediterranean and Europe, changing the approach that sees southern orientation of living spaces as the best solution. I would be happy to read in the conclusions some useful considerations for architects.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations for completing this interesting  study! 

Consider aligning the title with the actual study, the current title indicate a design approach, but this is more like a correlational study. 

Abstract needs revision, try to be more concise. Not clear what the slope means in a correlational study. 

Please note that there are few fundamental errors that needs to be fixed. 

•  The data interpretation and terms used needs revision and adhering to a standard style guide. The term slope is not clear. 
• There is a standard method to present statistical analysis, otherwise it is hard for readers to understand them. for instance, in a regression analysis, we would use adjusted R square to understand the strength  of the prediction . Also the coefficient is not given.
• The results and the discussion section are the same in the article. In the discussion you need to discuss the results in the context of similar research. 
• The conclusions has provided some new  interpretation, which should have been discussed in that section. 

Also consider adding a limitations section either into discussion or conclusions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please conduct a thorough editing and improve on sentence structures. 

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Thank you for your revised manuscript. I acknowledge the improvements made; however, a some comments were not fully addressed. Please find my detailed feedback below:

The section 2. Materials and Methods should focus strictly on the methodology and data used in this study. General background information and related literature, should be placed in the Introduction or, where appropriate, in the Results and Discussion section. Specifically, sections 2.2: The Impact of Building Orientation on Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency and 2.3: Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency in Residential Buildings and the Role of MRT contain valuable literature insights that are relevant to your research objectives. However, these sections would be more appropriately placed in the Introduction or the Discussion, where their context and significance can be properly integrated.

The methodology begins with the sentence: “In addition to the previously described procedures, this study also…..” This is unclear. The reference to “previously described procedures” needs to be clarified. All procedures relevant to the current study should be fully described within this section.

The manuscript still contains redundancy. For example, the information presented in lines 284–286 is repeated again in lines 316–318.

Although the authors state that all previous comments have been addressed, many of the responses lack clear indication of where the revisions have been incorporated in the manuscript. I kindly ask the authors to explicitly indicate the location (e.g., line numbers) where changes corresponding to each previous reviewer comment have been made. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their continued engagement and constructive feedback. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the improvements made and have carefully revised the manuscript to address the remaining concerns. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, along with specific references to the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: Relocation of Background Content in Section 2

“The section 2. Materials and Methods should focus strictly on the methodology and data used in this study. General background information and related literature should be placed in the Introduction or, where appropriate, in the Results and Discussion section. Specifically, sections 2.2 and 2.3 contain valuable literature insights that are relevant to your research objectives. However, these sections would be more appropriately placed in the Introduction or the Discussion.”

Response:
We agree with the reviewer’s observation. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have been relocated and integrated into the revised Discussion sections to better contextualize the literature insights. The methodological core of Section 2 now strictly presents the study’s procedures and data sources.

• Relocated content from former Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 have been incorporated into the Discussion, specifically in lines 362–447.

Comment 2: Clarification of “Previously Described Procedures”

“The methodology begins with the sentence: ‘In addition to the previously described procedures, this study also…..’ This is unclear. The reference to ‘previously described procedures’ needs to be clarified.”

Response:
We have revised the opening sentence of the methodology section to remove ambiguity. The phrase “previously described procedures” has been replaced with a direct reference to the specific methods used in this study. The revised sentence now begins with:

“This study considered the role of building envelope components…”

This change appears in line 196 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Redundancy Between Lines 284–286 and 316–318

“The manuscript still contains redundancy. For example, the information presented in lines 284–286 is repeated again in lines 316–318.”

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the redundant phrasing in lines 316–318 to streamline the narrative and avoid repetition. The revised text now focuses on elaborating the implications of the earlier statement rather than restating it.

Comment 4: Explicit Indication of Revision Locations

“Although the authors state that all previous comments have been addressed, many of the responses lack clear indication of where the revisions have been incorporated in the manuscript.”

Response:
We apologize for the earlier lack of specificity. In this revised submission, we have included explicit line numbers for all changes made in response to reviewer comments. These are noted in the point-by-point responses above and will also be highlighted in the tracked changes version of the manuscript for clarity.

We hope these revisions fully address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We remain grateful for your thoughtful critique and welcome any further suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their positive evaluation and recommendation to accept the manuscript in its present form. We appreciate your support and are pleased that the revisions have met your expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for taking time and positively responding to the feedback. 

table captions and numbering is not included. Table to is presented in a paragraph (line 469-472) . 

You need to show case whether, the regression coefficients  are significant with the p value. 

Table 3 has the same issue with the caption and numbering. Further, the interpretation  given is not accurate. The R square is an indicator of the how much of the dependent variable in the model can be predicted by the tested model. 

This is a fundamental error you need to correct. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our efforts and have carefully addressed each of the remaining concerns as outlined below.

Comment 1: Missing Table Captions and Numbering

“Table captions and numbering is not included. Table 2 is presented in a paragraph (line 469–472). Table 3 has the same issue.”

Response:
We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all tables are properly numbered and captioned according to journal formatting guidelines. Specifically:

• Table 2 has been extracted from the paragraph and now appears as a standalone table with a clear caption: “Table 2. Summary of regression model inputs and outputs.” This change is reflected in lines 470–472.
• Table 3 has also been reformatted and captioned as “Table 3. Regression coefficients and model fit statistics.” This appears in lines 484–485.

Comment 2: Significance of Regression Coefficients

“You need to showcase whether the regression coefficients are significant with the p-value.”

Response:
We have updated Table 3 to include the p-values for each regression coefficient, allowing readers to assess statistical significance directly. Additionally, we have clarified this in the accompanying text (see lines 480–483) by stating:

“All regression coefficients were tested for significance, and p-values are reported in Table 3. Coefficients with p < 0.05 are considered statistically significant.”

Comment 3: Misinterpretation of R²

“The interpretation given is not accurate. The R square is an indicator of how much of the dependent variable in the model can be predicted by the tested model. This is a fundamental error you need to correct.”

Response:
Thank you for highlighting this. We have corrected the interpretation of R² in the Results and Discussion section. The revised explanation now reads (see lines 485–488):

“The R² value indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variables in the regression model. A higher R² suggests better model fit and predictive power.”

This correction ensures conceptual accuracy and aligns with standard statistical interpretation.

We hope these revisions fully address your concerns and improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable insights.