Basic considerations on the practical method for predicting sound insulation performance of a single-leaf window

I think that the paper is ready for publication as those minor corrections that I had highlighted have been added.

I thank the authors for completing this paper with the additional comments already discussed

Due to the average person indoors’ increased time, it is essential to study how different building’s features can affect the environmental conditions. This article specifically focuses on an evaluation method for ventilation windows as part of the exterior building wall (closed configuration) starting from Sewell’s transmission theory for walls than the mass law. The authors rigorously first show the difference between these two predictive methods. Moreover, once the Sewell’s one is proved to be more accurate for ventilation windows, they compare its results with the reduction indices experimental ones showing a good agreement while considering a regression analysis as well. They clearly stated their findings imitations and further described how the study could be improved next.

I think that, if appropriately developed, this method could be particularly suitable for indoor environmental design. I have some comments about the article, which I hope will contribute to the readership:

1. Although, even if this is presented as “Basic considerations”, further inclusion of ventilation requirements and open configuration windows within their study could draw more complete design and analysis criteria to those approaching this practice. The two spheres of indoor environmental well-being conditions are dependant on one another, and I hope the authors will give more importance to this concept in their next publications. I would perhaps recommend including some explanations about why they didn’t consider the open window configurations analysis and why their specific approach was focused on closed configuration windows. Please, include also relevant references as the readership would benefit from it.
2. I think this study’s frequency range could have been broadened up to include more disturbing noise sources (car engines, traffic noise, and so on), which mainly relate to lower frequencies (the current analysis stop at 125Hz). However, the authors have already stated this limitation. I hope that they will consider a more comprehensive analysis on this side in the future.

I appreciate the authors’ honesty on the study limitations and further improvements. I am sure that they could include the suggested amendments in this paper and further improvements in their future studies with no effort.

I think that the paper is ready for publication if those minor corrections are added. I focused mainly on these aspects as the other reviewer has already extensively commented on some clarity issue that I recommend as well.

Dear authors, the article treats an interesting topic about sound reduction of glasses; however, some integrations are necessary for clarifications of statements.

Paragraph 2.2

Can you please specify if the tested windows are of the same manufacturer? Otherwise, can you specify them in type A, B C...?

Paragraph 2.3

Please include how many samples for each category have been tested, if the number of samples is equal for all the 3 thicknesses and the 3 'F' categories. The statement "up to three measured results..." is vague.

Paragraph 2.3.2

It is clear why the sliding window's surface area is bigger than the other 2 types but is there any reason why the surface area of the projected window is different from the fixed type? The comparison would be more affordable. Please integrate any comments.

Paragraph 2.3.3

Please change "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally to a greater degree than..." with "sliding window tends to create gaps structurally of a greater size than..."

Figure 2, 3, 4

Please add the legend related to the different types of curves and the axes' names. There is an explanation of the solid lines and the dash-dotted lines in the caption, but not for the empty dotted line. Please include this as well.

Paragraph 2.4

The sentence "..assuming the window has no gaps.." gets assumptions. Why not testing the windows by sealing all the gaps? In this way, the comparison would be more focused on the thickness and surface area of the specimens

Paragraph 3.2

The variations are attributed to the "structural differences or other window features" in relation to the regression analysis. How about the concept of measurement repeatability? Please include comments on how it can affect the results

Figure 6 - caption

".. represent values.." Please specify which type of values (e.g. measured, averaged..).

Please change "...of single glass only.." with "of single glass without frame.."

Paragraph 3.3

"the solid line shows the regression equation" please specify which equation it is referring to

Figure 7 - caption

Please change "broken line" with "dashed line"