## 4 Result Analysis and Discussion
The most significant deviations are similar to the AC-4 samples in the area of high relative humidity. The values of the samples from the environmental chamber are distorted at the last point by the influence of the moisture condensation accumulated in the chamber. Figure 8: Sorption and desorption equilibrium points for the AC-4 sample. Figure 10: Sorption and desorption equilibrium points for the AC-6 sample. Figure 9: Sorption and desorption equilibrium points for the AC-5 sample. Measurement results of the AC-6 samples are shown in Figure 10. There is a slight shift in isotherms. The sorption and desorption envelope curves lie below the values obtained from the conventional methods. The last point set using the environmental chamber is again distorted. Based on the data obtained, it can be seen that, for all three bulk densities, the tendencies are mostly identical in the whole range and only small shifts in the results are observed in the measured area. It should be noted that the shift may be caused by the high variability of the aerated concrete material in the samples. The sample volume used for the DVS system is only about one thousandth that of the sample volumes used for the climate chamber or saline desicators, and about one three thousandth of the sample used for the acid desicactors. The representative volume for DVS can thus be skewed with local anomalies in the sample. For these reasons, it is therefore advisable to test more samples taken from different locations of the large sample. The deviations in the individual methods at the highest humidity point are caused by several factors. Distortion of samples in the environmental chambers is caused by condensate accumulated on the walls of the environmental chamber, which dripped uncontrollably and could have wetted the surface of the samples. The desorption curve in the DVS measurement acquires higher values at the highest point, as is presented. The desorption curve starts at 97% relative humidity, so the peak of the sorption and desorption curve does not meet in one point as the other methods do. Due to these two reasons, the highest points are not comparable. Another important aspect of the sorption measurement is the time duration. The total time of measurements for each method is given in Table 10. The results were obtained fastest using the DVS method. These were obtained comprehensively in two to three days for the whole spectrum throughout the range of 17 points. For other methods, where there were only seven points, the successive measurements lasted approximately 80 days. The previous sections describe the measurement results and compare their determined sorption/desorption isotherms. The results show sound compatibility between the sorption/desorption isotherms obtained using two conventional methods and the DVS method throughout the entire relative air humidity range. The absolute differences in the moisture content values of the investigated range are acceptably small. Additionally, the following tendencies were observed: at the 430 bulk density level, the conventional method leads to practically the same moisture content values for a RH > 50%, and at the 520 level for a RH > 70%; however, at the 630 level, for the whole RH range investigated, the conventional method gives slightly higher values then the DVS method. It should be noted that in the area of higher relative humidity the results do not differ significantly, as was found here and strongly pointed out in previous research studies (e.g., in [34; 35]). At the highest humidity level measured (RH = 97%), the climatic chamber method provides a slightly higher (of about 1%) and the desiccator a slightly lower (up to 1%) equilibrium moisture content for all bulk densities in comparison to the DVS method. This represents a very low and highly acceptable deviation between the results measured.