The proposed contribution presents a detailed investigation of the performance of a commercial device aimed at providing high spatial resolution for microclimate investigation through mobile monitoring, in an IoT philosophy. The device is accessible via smartphone and data can be easily shared among the community on a dedicated platform according to the user available license. The topic is of great relevance given the rising awareness on the implications of complex urban morphology and ecosystem on intra-urban microclimate variability which impacts, among others, urban communities’ resilience. The authors comprehensively explore the reliability of the commercial device object of the study through three experimental steps that provide a clear view of the instrument potentials and limitations. Moreover, the authors implemented a recursive method to correct the relative humidity data that have been proven to significantly increase the reliability of measurements collected through the system under the formulated hypothesis. The methodology is accurately presented and could be of reference to future studies involving the usage of novel mobile systems for microclimate investigations, that are expected to increase in number given the relevance of the topic.

Just minor comments from my side: please check equations numbering in the paper, it seems that the recalled equation 3 in section 4.1 is missing; typo at page 2, line 50 “oOftentimes”, page 3 line 93 “mwith”.

A final comment related to the usability of the system in long-term route monitoring: the lack of internal memory may be a limitation since the device needs to be constantly connected to a smartphone which is feasible, but a backup plan is always recommended. Not sure about the economical and technical implications due to the integration of a minimum internal memory capacity.

The authors focus on evaluating the metrological performance of a commercial device designed for monitoring microclimate in urban areas with high spatial resolution, compliant with Internet of Things (IoT) principles and developed with low-cost sensors. This device can be connected to a smartphone to record and share data on a dedicated platform. The authors conduct three experimental phases to thoroughly evaluate the reliability of the device and introduce a recursive method to improve the accuracy of the humidity data. The methodology is well presented.

Some minor issues arise:

line 50: please revise the typos

Table 1: please provide the unit of measurement for each variable

Line 135: please explain why you did not consider internal memory

Line 153: it might be useful for the reader to also read the Koppen classification for the three areas considered for the test.

Line 191: if you also look at the data in Table 2, it is clear that there is a summer period when the three test sections were performed. So you wrote that the MTs were placed on the top of the vehicle, as close as possible to the car axis. But what about the factor of proximity to the car body (which can heat up a lot when exposed to sunlight in summer).

Lines 201-207: this section can be moved before section 3.3, which already refers to the comparison with fixed location

Line 207: please check the reference in round brackets: maybe it is sect. 4.4 ?

Figure 6d: Could you add the U.M.?

In Figure 11, the bin width does not seem to be 0.5°C, please check

In the caption of Figure 4, please link the suffix “c” , “d” in the headings of the table with the reference to "measured", "derived" or "corrected".