## 3 Results and Discussion
### Moisture Buffering Test
In the case of Assembly A, this was ECOSE mineral wool (4.12) with a density of 15 kg/m\({}^{3}\), while in the case of Assembly B, it was flexible Pavaflex fibreboard (3.2.2) with a density of 70 kg/m\({}^{3}\). Furthermore, both mineral wool (4.12) and fibreboard (3.2.2) were characterized by low and comparable vapour diffusion resistance factors \(\upmu\) (Table 2), but differed in the slope of the sorption isotherm (Figure 2). The curve for Pavaflex fibreboards (3.2.2) was at a higher level than the curve for ECOSE mineral wool (4.12). The slopes of the adsorption curves determine the moisture capacity \(\upmu\), and a higher moisture capacity seems to correlate with a higher dynamic adsorption [36]. Therefore, the MBV of Assembly B could be slightly higher than that of Assembly A. In turn, comparison of the 12.2-cm thick walls indicates a 9.21% increase in MBV for absorption and a 19.04% increase for desorption (for Assembly C compared to Assembly D). Here also, the difference in wall construction was limited to the composition of the internal layers. In the case of Assembly C, there was a 40-mm layer of ECOSE mineral wool (4.12) and a 20-mm air gap, while in the case of Assembly D, the inner layer was a layer of Pavaflex with a thickness of approximately 60 mm (3.3.2). A higher MBV for Assembly C indicates that, in the case of Assembly D, the internal layer of Pavaflex board was not fully active in the process of moisture buffering. The additional external layers significantly reduced the MBV capacity of the internal layer and changed the overall performance of the whole wall assembly. From the results, it can be observed that the wall assemblies finished with earth plaster with straw showed higher MBVs. Despite the higher sorption isotherm of the finishing layer in Assembly A (gypsum board with a thickness of 12.5 mm (3.6.3)) in comparison with Assembly C (8-mm thick clay plaster (2.2.4)) and a comparable value of the vapour diffusion resistance factor (Table 2), Assembly C was characterized by a 33% higher MBV than Assembly A. Furthermore, the thickness of the finishing layer in Assembly C was lower than the calculated penetration depth (d\({}_{p,1\%}\) = 18.9 mm), and therefore it may be that the water vapour penetrated through this layer and reached into the next, deeper layer. However, due to the very high affinity of the clay for water molecules, some of the moisture may also have been drawn in and held by ionic bonding with the clay particles themselves. This indicates that the actual penetration depth washhigher than the calculated depth. The same results have been observed by [PERSON] et al. [37]. In a multilayer wall, the MBV of each layer may contribute to the MBV of the assembly, and therefore the behaviour of the whole assembly cannot be assessed in a simple way. To look more closely at how the individual layers can affect the MBV of the assembly, the MBVs of the following materials were also tested: Pavaboard (3.2), Pavaflex (3.3.2) and gypsum fibreboard (3.6.3). A moisture buffering test was performed using DVS (dynamic vapour sorption) equipment with the same time period and RH level as for the climatic chamber tests. Measurements using the DVS technique were made on small samples of less than 1 g, with all surfaces exposed. The kinetics of sorption of the selected materials are presented in Figure 7 and the MBV results are in Figure 8.  
Comparing the MBVs of selected materials with the MBVs of the assemblies, we observe that the MBVs of individual materials are higher. The MBV of gypsum fibreboard (3.6.3) is 30% higher than that of Assembly A and 28% higher than that of Assembly B, and the MBV of Pavaboard (3.2) is 81% higher than that of Assembly C and 98% higher than that of Assembly D. This implies that the internal layer did not fully participate in the moisture buffering of the assembly, and the coating layers were more active.