A Review of Thermal Comfort Applied in Bus Cabin Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall structure should be revised to get a more comprensibile structure, defining, global aim, specifici objects, via a general methodology and specific methods.
The state of the art in not stated at there beginning, making hard to get the scientific gaps that Authors aim at investigating.
The paper's introduction is quite complete but it needs some additions.
LINES 49-50: CoVID transmission is mentioned. Moreover, this topic is no addressed anymore. Could be mentioned in the Research Questions RQs?
General aim is cleared outlined (LINES 59-60) but needs to be more focused trough specific objectives.
LINES 61-62 mention the general methodology with no reference to specific methods, that would be useful to address the final research's aim.
LINES 63-65 mention some reach Gaps that need to be clearly stated, in order to understand the Research's contributions and advancements.
CHAPTER 2 - LINE 66. Before methodology and methods definition, a State-of-the-art overview would be appreciated. The RQs are clearly stated but need to be likened to scientific gaps and to the state of the arts.
LINE 114: it is not clear what type of criterion Authors used to define "inclusion and exclusion".
LINES 118-119: exclusion criterion is mentioned but not clearly stated, as well as no boundaries to the research.
CHAPTER 3: The discussion responds to RQs, mentioned before, but needs some amendments.
LINE 128: How general results are organized and how they are going to be presented? Not stated yet.
LINES 133-135. A relevant preposition is here outlined. It would be better moved to Introduction to define the Research aim.
LINES 142-143, the Figure description need to be more focused to support an executive paper comprehension.
TABLE 4: very clear and summed up.
LINE 151: bibliometrics results are never mentioned before. They should be included in Methodology & Methods (to be re-write).
FIGURE2: X axis and Y axis are not defined, they need to be amended, graph cannot be read nevertheless.
LINES 168-170: why this growing in the last5 years? Something can thus be inferred, according to this statement.
LINE 202: Here approaches adopted should be discussed but how are they identified? Where exactly "REASERCH APPROACHES" are identified? PLEASE be more detailed.
TABLE 7: 1 column: "Productivity" needs to be clearly defined as it never be mentioned before. Is it relevant to research aims? If so, it needs to be clearly stated in the Aims.
LINES 222-223: which parameters are used to identified well-being? Please be more consistent.
LINE 225: Thermal comfort parameters identification should be described in RQ1.
LINE 241: please be more specific about "other studies"
LINE 251: other parameters that are to be considered should be evaluated in the state of the art, that is not described yet.
LINE 267: Authors mention "non air-conditioned buses, but they have not been mentioned so far. Does the research consider both AIR-CONDITIONED and NO AIR-CONDITIONED vehicles? This topic should be discussed the very beginning in order to define Research Boundaries (not presented in the Introduction). Therefore, it would be better to identify briefly which type of buses are considered in this research.
LINE 315: what can be inferred? Can those 6 studies be yet considered relevant, according to this premise? They should be reconsidered.
LINES 336-340: authors should link the conclusions to the initial Gaps' identification, in order to provide a consistent results review. Results and outcomes should be referred to Research Objectives and to the Research Aim.
LINES 347-349 mention some relevant studies and state of the art, that, unfortunately is not clearly defined so far.
LINES 359-363: need to be connected to Methodology (generally) and to specific methods (in depth).
LINES 365-366: Authors say that "but acoustic, lighting and acceleration comfort were also found in the studies included in this review", but there is reference to 23 selected papers, during the discussions.
LINES 371-373: the need to distinguish between bus with Air conditioning and Without AIR-CONDITIONING is clearly stated, but it is not stated in the REASERCH Aims.
Author Response
The overall structure should be revised to get a more comprensibile structure, defining, global aim, specifici objects, via a general methodology and specific methods.
Response: The authors inserted some changes in the introductory section and added the specific objectives according to the research questions in the methodological section according to lines 65-72. In addition, we specified the general method according to lines 73-80.
The state of the art in not stated at there beginning, making hard to get the scientific gaps that Authors aim at investigating.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation about the state of the art in this review on lines 201 to 343.
The paper's introduction is quite complete but it needs some additions.
LINES 49-50: CoVID transmission is mentioned. Moreover, this topic is no addressed anymore. Could be mentioned in the Research Questions RQs?
Response: The authors judged that it would not be appropriate to include in research questions regarding COVID-19. This is a new disease and it would not be ethical for us to invent something that was not addressed in studies of thermal comfort. Thus, we decided to correlate, in the abstrect (lines 13-15), the Fanger model that was designed for indoor environments and the recommendations on closed environment due to the coronavirus.
General aim is cleared outlined (LINES 59-60) but needs to be more focused trough specific objectives.
Response: The authors inserted some changes in the introductory section and added the specific objectives according to the research questions in the methodological section according to lines 65-72.
LINES 61-62 mention the general methodology with no reference to specific methods, that would be useful to address the final research's aim.
Response: The authors specified the specific methods according to lines 65-80.
LINES 63-65 mention some reach Gaps that need to be clearly stated, in order to understand the Research's contributions and advancements.
Response: The reach gas was clarified and the abstract was improved in the lines 79-80.
CHAPTER 2 - LINE 66. Before methodology and methods definition, a State-of-the-art overview would be appreciated. The RQs are clearly stated but need to be likened to scientific gaps and to the state of the arts.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation about the state of the art in this review on lines 201 to 343.
LINE 114: it is not clear what type of criterion Authors used to define "inclusion and exclusion".
Response: The authors' criteria were declaring in the lines 132-137.
LINES 118-119: exclusion criterion is mentioned but not clearly stated, as well as no boundaries to the research.
Response: The authors' criteria were declaring in the lines 132-137.
CHAPTER 3: The discussion responds to RQs, mentioned before, but needs some amendments.
Response: The authors write some amendments to facilitate the understanding of future readers on the lines 373-375, lines 399-400, lines 427-428, lines 464-465 and lines 483-484.
LINE 128: How general results are organized and how they are going to be presented? Not stated yet.
Response: The authors made a statement regarding the results organization and presentation on lines 150-154.
LINES 133-135. A relevant preposition is here outlined. It would be better moved to Introduction to define the Research aim.
Response: We authors made a change to the introduction in the lines 73-80 in order to clarify this point.
LINES 142-143, the Figure description need to be more focused to support an executive paper comprehension.
Response: Some improvements were made to the lines 168-169.
TABLE 4: very clear and summed up.
Response: Thank you very much
LINE 151: bibliometrics results are never mentioned before. They should be included in Methodology & Methods (to be re-write).
Response: Bibliometrics was commented on in the methodology on lines 115-116. As well as at the beginning of the results section on lines 150-154.
FIGURE2: X axis and Y axis are not defined, they need to be amended, graph cannot be read nevertheless.
Response: The authors replaced the graph that was not configured with a configured value.
LINES 168-170: why this growing in the last5 years? Something can thus be inferred, according to this statement.
Response: Some inferences were made in the lines 195-197.
LINE 202: Here approaches adopted should be discussed but how are they identified? Where exactly "REASERCH APPROACHES" are identified? PLEASE be more detailed.
Response: The authors have included a paragraph to explain this point in the lines 373-375.
TABLE 7: 1 column: "Productivity" needs to be clearly defined as it never be mentioned before. Is it relevant to research aims? If so, it needs to be clearly stated in the Aims.
Response: The authors had previously mentioned in the methodological section on lines 89-90.
LINES 222-223: which parameters are used to identified well-being? Please be more consistent.
Response: The thermal sensation can be linked to the health or well-being or the safety of the occupants. This was mentioned in the methodological section on the lines 87-90.
LINE 225: Thermal comfort parameters identification should be described in RQ1.
Response: Not in RQ1 but in RQ2, as presented in the methodological section.
LINE 241: please be more specific about "other studies"
Response: Corrected on lines 241 and 242
LINE 251: other parameters that are to be considered should be evaluated in the state of the art, that is not described yet.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation about the state of the art in this review on lines 201 to 343.
LINE 267: Authors mention "non air-conditioned buses, but they have not been mentioned so far. Does the research consider both AIR-CONDITIONED and NO AIR-CONDITIONED vehicles? This topic should be discussed the very beginning in order to define Research Boundaries (not presented in the Introduction). Therefore, it would be better to identify briefly which type of buses are considered in this research.
Response: It was included in lines 51, 65 and 66 of the introduction.
LINE 315: what can be inferred? Can those 6 studies be yet considered relevant, according to this premise? They should be reconsidered.
Response: An observation was made on lines 348 to 351.
LINES 336-340: authors should link the conclusions to the initial Gaps' identification, in order to provide a consistent results review. Results and outcomes should be referred to Research Objectives and to the Research Aim.
Response: Some changes were made at the conclusion in the lines 517-519 and 544-546.
LINES 347-349 mention some relevant studies and state of the art, that, unfortunately is not clearly defined so far.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation about the state of the art in this review on lines 201 to 343.
LINES 359-363: need to be connected to Methodology (generally) and to specific methods (in depth).
Response: Basically, each paragraph of the conclusion specifies a research question raised, as we also point out guidelines for future research in this field of knowledge. As we authors added in the Introduction the specific objectives and that they are the research questions formulated, we think that our conclusion is now well supported.
LINES 365-366: Authors say that "but acoustic, lighting and acceleration comfort were also found in the studies included in this review", but there is reference to 23 selected papers, during the discussions.
Response: Improvements were made to lines 544 to 546
LINES 371-373: the need to distinguish between bus with Air conditioning and Without AIR-CONDITIONING is clearly stated, but it is not stated in the REASERCH Aims.
Response: Afterwards, we authors include the correlation between the Fanger model designed for indoor environments with COVID and the discussions regarding the need for air renovation in closed environments. We think that this bus stop with or without air conditioning is directly affected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well structured. The approach is very interesting and pleasant to read.
Some corrections are needed.
In table 2 there is a typo: "Inclusion" instead of "iclusion"
Figure 2 shows wrong values.
Author Response
The paper is well structured. The approach is very interesting and pleasant to read.
Some corrections are needed.
In table 2 there is a typo: "Inclusion" instead of "iclusion"
Response: The authors made the corrections as indicated by the reviewer
Figure 2 shows wrong values.
Response: The authors replaced the graph that was not configured with a configured value.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study in its totality is interesting and the paper is pleasant to read. The selection process of papers is clear and well-done, and the structure of the article based on the research questions is effective to capture the attention of the reader.
Nevertheless, I miss a part of proper review of the articles. Several aspects of the papers under exam are considered and evaluated (which standard they refer to, which comfort model they used, and so forth), but after all the analysis the reader end up knowing almost nothing about them. I would suggest adding a section that contains a brief description of each paper (similar papers could be grouped in a single paragraph or description of course), underlying which was their innovative contribution in the field.
As the authors stated, this is the first review about the topic, so I would also spend a few paragraphs to explain how tests on buses are made in general. For instance, they talked about a questionnaire, but how respondents are chosen? What does the questionnaire contain? I myself deal with thermal comfort and I was thrilled to discover how it works with measurement in buses, but my sensation after reading this review article is that I still do not know. Some information more it would be of great interest and it would give, in my opinion, something extra to the paper.
Detailed comments:
In the first lines of the abstract, it is not clear why Fanger’s model and the COVID-19 pandemic are correlated. I found appropriate to mention the topic in the Introduction, but I would eliminate it from the abstract since the relation with the coronavirus has not been analyzed in the rest of the review.
Line 37 – Was considered unsatisfactory in which case? In the referenced study in particular, in most of the cases examined, in an overall opinion?
Line 38 – Please rephrase. Moreover, the reader is not supposed to know which are the input of Fanger’s model, so the sentence could be clearer naming the parameters. It would be easier to understand in this form: ‘Some environmental parameters, namely […], and their adverse impacts on the passengers’ health and well-being 41 have drawn the attention of previous studies’.
Table 2 – Please correct the typing errors “yaers” and “reseach”.
Line 133 – It is not clear if review papers are excluded or not in this study. Previously, in table 2 the reader might understand that review papers are excluded, so I suggest clarifying this point.
Figure 2 – X and Y axis seem to have problems in labels. Besides this problem, the values upon the bars overlap, so maybe a 90Ëš rotation could improve the comprehension.
Line 166 – I think the description is referring to Figure 2, not Figure 1.
Author Response
The study in its totality is interesting and the paper is pleasant to read. The selection process of papers is clear and well-done, and the structure of the article based on the research questions is effective to capture the attention of the reader.
Nevertheless, I miss a part of proper review of the articles. Several aspects of the papers under exam are considered and evaluated (which standard they refer to, which comfort model they used, and so forth), but after all the analysis the reader end up knowing almost nothing about them. I would suggest adding a section that contains a brief description of each paper (similar papers could be grouped in a single paragraph or description of course), underlying which was their innovative contribution in the field.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation of the articles included in this review on lines 201 to 343
As the authors stated, this is the first review about the topic, so I would also spend a few paragraphs to explain how tests on buses are made in general. For instance, they talked about a questionnaire, but how respondents are chosen? What does the questionnaire contain? I myself deal with thermal comfort and I was thrilled to discover how it works with measurement in buses, but my sensation after reading this review article is that I still do not know. Some information more it would be of great interest and it would give, in my opinion, something extra to the paper.
Response: The authors included a brief explanation of the articles included in this review on lines 201 to 343
Detailed comments:
In the first lines of the abstract, it is not clear why Fanger’s model and the COVID-19 pandemic are correlated. I found appropriate to mention the topic in the Introduction, but I would eliminate it from the abstract since the relation with the coronavirus has not been analyzed in the rest of the review.
Response: Upon reading this reviewer's comment, the authors agreed that there was no correlation between the Fanger Model and COVID-19. However, the authors correlated the Fanger Model and COVID-19 and the abstract was improved in lines 13, 14 and 15. The highlighted model was designed for indoor environments and there is a discussion regarding the transmission of coronavirus in closed environments.
Line 37 – Was considered unsatisfactory in which case? In the referenced study in particular, in most of the cases examined, in an overall opinion?
Response: One more comment welcome. The authors accepted the comment and improved the introduction on lines 39 and 40. Thus, the particular conditions in which passengers were dissatisfied were described.
Line 38 – Please rephrase. Moreover, the reader is not supposed to know which are the input of Fanger’s model, so the sentence could be clearer naming the parameters. It would be easier to understand in this form: ‘Some environmental parameters, namely […], and their adverse impacts on the passengers’ health and well-being 41 have drawn the attention of previous studies’.
Response: The authors agreed with the observation made by the reviewer and we detailed the parameters explored in the study mentioned in lines 40-41 and lines 44-45.
Table 2 – Please correct the typing errors “yaers” and “reseach”.
Response: The authors made the corrections as indicated by the reviewer.
Line 133 – It is not clear if review papers are excluded or not in this study. Previously, in table 2 the reader might understand that review papers are excluded, so I suggest clarifying this point.
Response: We made changes to lines 162-163 - We made a change to improve this explanation, as we also thought you were confused after your comment.
Figure 2 – X and Y axis seem to have problems in labels. Besides this problem, the values upon the bars overlap, so maybe a 90Ëš rotation could improve the comprehension.
Response: The authors replaced the graph that was not configured with a configured value.
Line 166 – I think the description is referring to Figure 2, not Figure 1.
Response: The authors are grateful for the observation and the correction was made by Figure 2 in the line 196.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate all the amendments Authors have made, in order to get a more comprehensive research.
The abstract is now more focused.
The addition of air condition and no-air conditioning distinction is very useful.
Just few notes:
LINES 64-75: The structure is now clearer, and the research structure is now clearly outlined.
LINES 79-80:Now the main Gap is clearly stated, but it would be better to move it before lines 64 and subsequent. Firstly Gaps are identified, later the research aim is outlined, starting from the actual scientific gaps.
LINE 131: Table 2-quite obvious considerations, but they can still be useful.
LINE 131: misspelling in "YEARS", column 2, fourth line.
Figure 2: now both axes are clearly defined
LINES 198-200: it would be appropriate to declare that the next paragraphs will present a short summaries of each papers' main topics.
Moreover, before discussing the outcomes of each papers, it would be better to define that the results (thermal comfort conditions and other parameters) are always related to local microclimate, otherwise the outcomes could be misleading.
LINE 209: "The other situations failed". what does it mean? Please be more accurate
LINE 233: please repeat Authors' name instead of "he".
LINES 239-240: Which climatic zone (climatic prevalent conditions) does the paper refer to? In other words, are these thermal thresholds suitable for which climate?
LINES 269-271: Which climatic zone (climatic prevalent conditions) does this paper refer to? In other words, are these thermal thresholds suitable for which climate?
LINES 335-336: Which climatic zone do Pala and others refer to?
After figure 3, at the end of papers' outcomes discussion, a summarizing table with indication to the geographical locations in which the experimental papers have been investigated would be useful.
LINES 513-515: now it is clearly stated and more focused!
Author Response
I appreciate all the amendments Authors have made, in order to get a more comprehensive research.
The abstract is now more focused.
The addition of air condition and no-air conditioning distinction is very useful.
Just few notes:
LINES 64-75: The structure is now clearer, and the research structure is now clearly outlined.
LINES 79-80: Now the main Gap is clearly stated, but it would be better to move it before lines 64 and subsequent. Firstly Gaps are identified, later the research aim is outlined, starting from the actual scientific gaps.
Response: The authors moved the gap to lines 64-70
LINE 131: Table 2-quite obvious considerations, but they can still be useful.
LINE 131: misspelling in "YEARS", column 2, fourth line.
Response: Correction done
Figure 2: now both axes are clearly defined
LINES 198-200: it would be appropriate to declare that the next paragraphs will present a short summaries of each papers' main topics.
Response: The authors moved the paragraph from lines 205-210 to lines 192-198 and changed the paragraph from 199-203 to declare the next paragraphs that presents the articles
Moreover, before discussing the outcomes of each papers, it would be better to define that the results (thermal comfort conditions and other parameters) are always related to local microclimate, otherwise the outcomes could be misleading.
Response: The authors included a paragraph to explain the relationship between the thermal comfort and microclimate conditions of the bus lines 211-215.
LINE 209: "The other situations failed". what does it mean? Please be more accurate
Response: Corrected on lines 222-227
LINE 233: please repeat Authors' name instead of "he".
Response: The authors replaced it with “The year 2010” on line 249
LINES 239-240: Which climatic zone (climatic prevalent conditions) does the paper refer to? In other words, are these thermal thresholds suitable for which climate?
Response: added on lines 250-251
LINES 269-271: Which climatic zone (climatic prevalent conditions) does this paper refer to? In other words, are these thermal thresholds suitable for which climate?
Response: added on line 282
LINES 335-336: Which climatic zone do Pala and others refer to?
Response: added on line 350
After figure 3, at the end of papers' outcomes discussion, a summarizing table with indication to the geographical locations in which the experimental papers have been investigated would be useful.
Response: The authors reported the geographical location of all articles in Table 4
LINES 513-515: now it is clearly stated and more focused!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
