Showering Thermal Sensation in Residential Bathrooms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study examines the influence of the thermal environment in a bathroom on the thermal sensations of the showering subjects. This manuscript describes an original and interesting work. Before it is accepted and published, following suggestions were given to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. Please describe the relationship between the interview responses in Table 2 and the experimental design. What conclusions were drawn from the interview responses and how did the survey conclusions contribute to the design of the experiment
2. According to the data in Table 3, only 38.8℃ was set as the shower water temperature in the experiment. How is the conclusion in Figure 3(b) reached? Is there a lack of relevant data to support it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and the reply to reviewers is attached for comments. Thanks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an interesting point of view on thermal comfort in bathroom against water temperature, however, only one water temperature value was measured.
My 19 comments are highlighted in the text. Some aspects need clarification.
The most important aspect is the questions test just after showering and use a typical comfort scale which in common studies is used after 20 minutes of adaptative time. In my opinion, it should be proven that the TSV scale is appropriate for this study. Please consider if it better is to conduct a survey before and after the shower.
In the references is the publication with no. 4 necessary?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and I submit the response to comments as attached document. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper "Showering thermal sensation in residential bathrooms" falls within the scope of Water Journal and shows some relevance.
In this paper, the authors present an interesting work that focuses on examining the influence of the thermal environment in a bathroom on the thermal sensations of the showering subjects.
This work, with the necessary transformations, could become publishable but requires some improvement. In this sense, there are some suggestions on the paper attached that should be attended before publishing.
Suggestion 01
The abstract should be partially rewritten to adjust its length to the key concepts. The research gap is not clearly described.
Suggestion 02
This introduction section lacks a better contextualisation of the problem. In this sense a more extensive and grounded introduction is missed. A clear definition of the real problem, challenges, or research gaps, the main objectives of the study, and its limitations as well as the structure of the manuscript should also be included in this section.
Suggestion 03
Novelty unclear: What is the original contribution of the study? The methodology is not very enlightening on the subject. Novelty should be made as clear as possible.
Suggestion 04
The number of surveys is considered too limited, the criteria for determining it should be justified. Furthermore, the survey is not attached as supplementary information. Without this document the replicability of the experiment cannot be guaranteed.
Suggestion 05
Main data found in the results must be presented in the conclusion section in order to strengthen the proposed joint method.
Suggestion 06
This reviewer does not feel it necessary to add any further comments regarding the content of the other sections of the manuscript. Overall, it is an interesting work, as discussed above.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments, the reply to reviewers are listed in attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In view of the first review comments, the author has revised the reply and has no further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering all of my comments. In my opinion Table 3 should be amended to beeing more readable/visible, I mean values for Male and Female are not clear when reading text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments, the reply to reviewers are listed in attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript, in its current version, is suitable for publication.
