Sustainability of Maintaining Glass Collections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research context for the study - (English) heritage locations with mostly very high RH (> 60%), not a museum - is given relativly late in the article. It would be helpful for the reader to understand the room characteristics and which showcases are located where from the beginning. Also which part of the glass collection needs the energy consuming corridor.
Since the article evalutes the recommendations of one specific study [4], it would be beneficial to know, if the given climate values are confirmed or if the presented results are actually updating the previous recommendations. For example, if a lower RH around 35 % with a wider, easier to maintain corridor should be targeted in the future.
Further comments are given in the text.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review. The responses to your comments are formatted as replies in the pdf document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper by Thicket and Melinis presents a comprehensive study on the sustainability of methods used to control environmental conditions for preserving unstable glass in heritage institutions.
It addresses a critical issue in heritage conservation: balancing environmental control for glass preservation with sustainability (with particular regards to reducing energy use and carbon footprint).
The study focuses on specific equipment (for instance MuntergsMG50 , miniclima) and UK climate conditions. Results may not fully vary to regions with different climate conditions. This is a technically robust study that could benefit from major revision especially concerning the introduction and the materials and methods.
Materials and methods should contain a subsection listing all the analytical technique used in this study (e.g., SEM-EDS, Raman) and the experimental conditions for the analysis.
I would suggest finding an alternative title as “Detecting Unstable Glass to Improve Sustainability” could be confusing for a non-expert reader.
The introduction should include definitions for key terms such as “unstable glass”. The distinction between sampling fragments and analysing intact objects need explicit rationale to frame the study’s scope (what does “object where sampling is straightforward” as opposed to “complete objects” mean?)
Also please specify if the accuracies for RH probes are ± 2 or 3 % or just +
Why does this study cite specifically germanium ATR FTIR?
What does the term microprobe refer to (SEM EDAX or microprobe)?
Author Response
Comment 1: The study focuses on specific equipment (for instance MuntergsMG50 , miniclima) and UK climate conditions. Results may not fully vary to regions with different climate conditions. This is a technically robust study that could benefit from major revision especially concerning the introduction and the materials and methods.
Response 1: Text added in revised version.
Comment 2: Materials and methods should contain a subsection listing all the analytical technique used in this study (e.g., SEM-EDS, Raman) and the experimental conditions for the analysis.
Response 2: More information on SEM and Raman added within text.
Comment 3: I would suggest finding an alternative title as “Detecting Unstable Glass to Improve Sustainability” could be confusing for a non-expert reader.
Response 3: Changed to "Sustainability of maintaining glass collections"
Comment 4: The introduction should include definitions for key terms such as “unstable glass”. The distinction between sampling fragments and analysing intact objects need explicit rationale to frame the study’s scope (what does “object where sampling is straightforward” as opposed to “complete objects” mean?)
Response 4: Table with additional recommendations has been added. The dichotomy of "straighforward sampling" versus "complete objects" refers mostly to objects from which a small fragment for analysis can be taken versus the objects where this is impossible or very complicated.
Comment 5: Also please specify if the accuracies for RH probes are ± 2 or 3 % or just +
Response 5: Amended, it is ±
Comment 6: Why does this study cite specifically germanium ATR FTIR?
Response 6: Text added.
Response 7: What does the term microprobe refer to (SEM EDAX or microprobe)?
Response 7: Amended, it is SEM-EDX.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease double check the use of "SEM-EDAX and microprobe" in line 48.
Line 51-52 "Germanium ATR gives more sensitivity than the more common diamond ATR technique" please add a reference and/or an explanation about this statement.
Author Response
Please double check the use of "SEM-EDAX and microprobe" in line 48.
- Changed "SEM-EDAX" to SEM-EDX and "microprobe" to EPMA.
Line 51-52 "Germanium ATR gives more sensitivity than the more common diamond ATR technique" please add a reference and/or an explanation about this statement.
- Have added a reference with extensive discussion of this point [17].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
