Exchange of Heat Radiation between Human Body and Urban Environment: Characterization in Visible, Near-Infrared, and Far-Infrared Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Authors

The authors have used three cameras operating at different wavelengths to measure the environmental radiation energy at each wavelength region to properly discuss the cause of the heat load.

The review paper will be improved if the following problems are solved.

1.      Abstract

Significant results should be included in this section. Moreover, some suggestions after the pointed common conclusion are expected.

2.      Conclusions

Conclusions are given for summer, winter and cloudy days. Maybe some readers are very curious about rainy days in southern China or Kyushu area in Japan.

3.      Future research suggestion

The selected three typical locations are good. However, only one static person is concerned which is not common situation. In future more dynamic people should be included for evaluation.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written. However, there are some concerns that, if addressed suitably, can significantly improve the overall quality of the work. Some suggestions can be implemented, while the remainder can be considered as the scope of future work. For my detailed comment, please refer to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General structure of paper is fine and it is well written. Paper is of current interest and falls in the scope of journal, however, there are following suggestions without addressing them paper should not be accepted for publication:

There are some typing errors in the manuscript. Please, check the paper again for any possible misprints

In the Abstract section, you should describe your work and contribution more clearly than what they were in the background of the research. Currently, it is hard to know the main content and results of this article from the Abstract.

The novelty should be further strengthened. It is not clear in the current manuscript.

The “Introduction” part is not well organized, although many references have been cited. The
knowledge gap of the research topic was not reported. A good literature survey should be carefully
prepared to show the aim of the study: whether to meet the knowledge gap or to uncover some
novel findings. Based on the present introduction, one cannot easily judge the contribution of the
present paper. To improve this section you can use “Usefulness of PCM in building applications focusing on envelope heat exchange–energy saving considering two scenarios”

The manuscript lacks a Nomenclature section.  The relevant mathematical and Greek symbols must be identified alphabetically along with their units.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns in the revised manuscript. Thanks.