Head Regional Differences in Thermal Comfort: Evaluating a Novel Surgical Helmet Cooling Method with Phase Change Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Refer to comments file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this pilot study, authors investigate regional differences in thermal comfort of neck and head areas when applying a surgical helmet equipped with cooling elements based on phase change materials. Even if the research is interesting and fits with the scope of the journal, the manuscript is somewhat simple. I have the following comments for authors:

1)  There is little technical information regarding the PCM pads. It is necessary to indicate, at least, the type of material, the phase change temperature and enthalpy, pad size, amount of PCM. How were the pads placed in the head/neck of the subjects? More technical/medical reasoning is also necessary about how were selected the 38 investigated locations.

2) The statistical analysis should be presented in further detail and in a more attractive way.

3) Discussion should focus on present study and compare obtained results with similar medical investigations (rather than building confort).

4) There is a lack of medical discussion of obtained results. Do authors have any possible explanation for why certain specific areas do influence more than others on thermal comfort of subjects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors examined the regional differences in thermal comfort in the head and neck areas by applying a surgical helmet equipped with cooling pads containing phase change material (PCM).

Comments:

1.      The motivation of the study is not clear. Give it in detail.

2.      What are the assumptions taken in the study.

3.      The literature review is inadequate. The authors must provide detailed survey of the literature of the present problem.

4.      The obtained results are not enough to accept the paper in an archived SCIE journal. Add more results with different combinations of parameters involved in the study.

5.       Conclusion should be brief and concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Moderate editing of English language required, Use grammarly premium version to check the grammar of the manuscript. 

Moderate editing of English language required, Use grammarly premium version to check the grammar of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have performed the changes suggested by this reviewer. In my opinion, the article may be considered for acceptance in the present form.