Effect of Hemicellulose on the Wet Tensile Strength of Kozo Paper
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I begin by appreciating the work that has gone into this study. However, there are some elements that need to be improved, mostly related to the way you have presented the evidence obtained, in chapter 2. This needs to be corrected as it is not clear how many samples you have done and how they are described later. I have made some comments on this aspect in the attached text. Another aspect that you need to complete is the conclusion chapter, where you should write the reason why you did this study and its usefulness. Good luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor spelling issues must be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Special type of paper used for traditional cultural works were investigated for the factors causing a decline in wet tensile strength observed in some papers. The authors have focused on hemicellulose component in this manuscript and they got results suggesting some positive relation between the amount of hemicellulose in the paper and wet tensile strength.
The employed analytical methods are those generally accepted, however, experimental section lacks some essential information for evaluating the results by readers. Also, their interpretation of the results needs to be clarified. We, the readers, can see what they had observed, but cannot understand what the authors think that they have newly understood though this research.
1 What exactly are the line segment in the Figures and the value shown as ± in the Tables? Are they standard error, standard deviation, or others? Please state what they are. Additionally, what are probable reasons behind producing these? Are there several different cooking batches under the identical experimental conditions? Or, are they because of different analysis (different analytical batch for neutral carbohydrate and/or different GC injection) for the same batch of samples? Since there is no information related to how many batches of cooking was conducted, the number of repetitions for each analysis, etc., readers cannot evaluate the meaning and significance of this line segment and the value. Please explain.
2 The Experimental part should be revised for easy understanding. Since there are many samples those are named with a rule which readers are difficult to understand, please mention how they are named. For example, what does "(H)" stand for? Is this necessary to distinguish the samples? Table titles should also need to be improved, because basically it should be self-explanatory. If the numbers just after the capitalized two letters represent cooking time, please mention so clearly.
3 For monomeric sugar determination, did you use internal standard, or without it (absolute calibration)? How did you obtain the glucan yield?
4 The authors have reviewed several earlier researches in the Introduction and I understood that basically there are two suggested mechanisms for keeping paper strength high: the first is to cook in milder condition to limit damages on hemicellulose (and cellulose) originally contained in feedstock, and the other is to promote re-absorption of degraded hemicellulose to a pulp. However, in this manuscript, it is difficult to understand how the authors think about these two mechanisms in relation to their obtained results. I think this point should be revised and clarified throughout the manuscript.
5 Figs. 1, 3 and 5 show the same type of values with different sample/experimental conditions. In such case, I think x- and y- axes of these two Figures should generally be standardized for easy comparison of the data shown in the Figures. For example, I would like to recommend to begin the x-axis of Fig. 1 by 3.0. Additionally, the y-axis of Fig. 1 should begin from 0. Regarding the y-axes for Figs. 4 and 6, the scales seem to me not appropriate (=can be seen as exaggerating the difference). The scales of these Figures should be also standardized with corresponding Figs. 2, and 3 or 5, respectively.
Additional minor comments:
6 (The beginning of the 3rd paragraph in P. 2) I would advise to insert the word “chemical” before the word “components”, because the previous topic was on the structural components (parenchyma cell, fiber etc.)
7 Please check and correct, where necessary, the reference list and citation in the text. For example, the information on “Mitikka-Eklund [3]” and “Sverker et al. [8]” (in the top part of P. 3), seems to be missing from the list. Does “Gustavsson and Jiang et al. [12]” (in P.6 and P.7) mean “Gustavsson [11] and Jiang et al. [12]”?
8 (The very end of P.3) I couldn’t understand what the authors want to say with “-S indicates additional samples”. Please revise so it would become easily understandable.
9 (The 3rd line from the bottom in P.6) I think the phrase “(KH)” should be inserted just after “cooked with caustic soda”.
10 There is unnecessary “and” at the very end of the authors list.
I think there are no grammatical problems, however, some expressions seems to me unsophisticated.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper title- Effect of Hemicellulose on the Wet Tensile Strength of Kozo Paper has been discussed in this work. The paper can be accepted after minor revision. There are some Specific Comments are given below-
1. Title: Effect of Hemicellulose mentioned in the title, however, this effect was not discussed inside text properly.
2. Abstract: What is the weight % of Hemicellulose used in the sample and how the tensile strength measured needs to be mentioned briefly.
3. Introduction: The introduction provides a good background of the research. However, it would be helpful to include a more detailed explanation of the motivation for studying the up-to-date information. Providing a clear research objective and novelty would also enhance the introduction part.
4. Experimental Methods: Sample preparation and their formulation should be provided with a table for better understanding.
5. Results and Discussion: The wet tensile strength result was not found in the result discussion section. Footnotes are expected for all tables.
6. Conclusion: The conclusion provides a concise summary of the study findings. However, it would be valuable to include insights into the practical implications of the results and suggestions for further research.
7. Reference: Number of relevant references can be increased.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper presents a valuable investigation into the enhancement of wet tensile strength in Kozo paper, which is essential for its utility as backlining material in hanging scrolls. The effort to address the challenges associated with its wet tensile strength is commendable. Here are some positive aspects and recommendations:
Positive Aspects:
Relevance to Conservation: The paper's focus on improving the wet tensile strength of Kozo paper is highly relevant to the field of conservation. Addressing the issue of weak wet tensile strength can contribute significantly to the preservation of valuable artworks and calligraphy.
In-Depth Research: The paper builds upon previous research by exploring various factors affecting wet tensile strength, including sheet forming methods, cooking conditions, and parenchyma cell content. This comprehensive approach adds depth to the investigation.
Key Finding: The identification of glucuronoxylan as a contributing factor to wet tensile strength is a significant discovery. This finding provides a clear direction for enhancing the paper's strength.
Recommendations:
Optimize Cooking Conditions: To improve wet tensile strength, it is recommended to explore cooking conditions that allow for the retention of a higher amount of glucuronoxylan in the pulp. This could involve milder cooking conditions, as suggested in the paper, but further research can refine these conditions for optimal results.
Practical Applications: While the paper establishes the importance of glucuronoxylan content, it would be beneficial to explore practical methods for integrating this knowledge into the production of Kozo paper. Providing insights into real-world applications and potential modifications in the paper-making process would be valuable.
In conclusion, this paper offers a significant contribution to the field of conservation and papermaking by addressing an important issue related to Kozo paper. The identification of glucuronoxylan as a key factor influencing wet tensile strength opens up new possibilities for paper production. Further research and practical applications in this direction have the potential to enhance the quality and usability of Kozo paper in various cultural and artistic contexts.
none
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to appreciate for your sincere responses to my earlier comments in this short period of time. I think the manuscript got clearer and now much easier to read and understand.
I still have some minor comments.
1 Regarding JIS. For P8222, you referred the 1998 version in P. 4 and in P. 6, you referred the 2005 version. Is it a simple typo or the writing is correct and you referred the different version because of the different time of conducting the experiment? Also, I think there is a typo in the title of Fig. 1. (“JISP18135:1998” should be “JIS P8135:1998”, add space between S and P and delete unnecessary 1.)
2 I still think that the sample names HC0.5 and HC2.5 appear too suddenly in the text. Could you revise the sentence something like “… the glucuronoxylan was added in the amounts of 0.5 g and 2.5 g. These samples were named HC0.5 and HC2.5, respectively.”?
3 (the very bottom of P. 6) I think the letter “n” in the equation is unclear and seems as “r”. Please revise. Also, “n: Number of sample pieces (n=1 in our case)” is little difficult to understand. Could you consider alternative expression something like, for example, “n: Number of layered sample pieces (n=1 in our case)”?
4 (P. 3 [5] and [8], P. 9 & 10 [13] and [14], P. 10 [15]) Please check with the Journal editorial with the way of mentioning authors’ names in the citation, especially when the authors are two persons only. (Should two persons’ names be mentioned, or “et al.” is enough?)
5 Different terms for cooking reagent are used only in P. 9. (The term “soda ash” is used for “sodium carbonate” and “caustic soda” for “sodium hydroxide”.) Couldn’t it possible to unify these terms?
I advise to consider the followings in the future:
--- I have read the description of how you had obtained the molar ratios of each monomeric sugars originate from hemicelluloses. I think an interpretation of such data needs extra caution since it is somewhat unreliable. You should conduct analysis properly so you can show (at least the rough) yield of each monomeric sugar obtained after hydrolysis.
--- I am still not content with your response for comment 4. At least, you should have some mechanisms of HOW glucuronoxylan content affect wet tensile index, and explain in the manuscript. I still couldn’t understand how you think about this by reading the revised manuscript. Please clarify this point, so you can feedback the solution for the actual paper producers in your future research and work.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
