Influence of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Veneers Quality on Selected Properties of Layered Composite for Flooring Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, please consider my suggestions:

• in the title of the article, it should appear that these are veneers for flooring materials. They are thicker and different from normal surface veneers in layer composites (line 2-3)
• The introduction part is insufficient. What about other research in this area? Any previous results?
  - it is debatable to considering reducing the MOE and MOR of veneers, flooring materials are laid on the surface and do not require high values ​​of mechanical properties of veneers. They require hardness and abrasion resistance. Therefore, these veneers are thicker (usually 2.5 to 4.0 mm, their thickness 3.0 mm is OK) than ordinary surface veneers (lines 47 - 52)
  - due to planar stability, it would be correct for the lowest pine layer also to be 3.0 mm thick and not only 1.5 mm, there is a risk of planar instability of the panel (lines 71-79)
  - the technical parameters of gluing are incomplete and need to be supplemented and explained: why application up to 200 g/m2? Why a temperature of only 120 oC? Why an incredibly short pressing time of only 60 s? what kind of glue was it, was it really that reactive? (lines 93 - 100)
  - in high-quality articles it is necessary to describe how the experimental material was obtained,  names and brands of all used equipment, manufacturers, countries, etc. 
• there are non-traditional values ​​of conditioning of samples compared to valid EU standards - why? The conditioning temperature is a bit high, the humidity is a bit low and the conditioning time is extremely long for interior flooring (lines 101 - 104)
  - line 106: why was the follow-up research at 10 and 80% humidity? It is not enough to state, it must be justified.
  - lines 125 - 136: if the density profile is measured, previously the diagram should have been clearly indicated, which only affects the density profile
  - fig. 4 and formulas 1 and 2 are completely unnecessary.
  - there is a completely missing discussion in the article
  - apart from the Introduction, there is not a single citation in the whole article.
  
  
• What about the novelty of this article? Are there any limitations in this research? 

Author Response

Open Review 1

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for your review which will improve our work !

Dear authors, please consider my suggestions:

• in the title of the article, it should appear that these are veneers for flooring materials. They are thicker and different from normal surface veneers in layer composites (line 2-3)

corrected

• The introduction part is insufficient. What about other research in this area? Any previous results?
  - it is debatable to considering reducing the MOE and MOR of veneers, flooring materials are laid on the surface and do not require high values ​​of mechanical properties of veneers. They require hardness and abrasion resistance. Therefore, these veneers are thicker (usually 2.5 to 4.0 mm, their thickness 3.0 mm is OK) than ordinary surface veneers (lines 47 - 52)

We did not find any research on the subject of the article. There are only slightly related studies, and they add nothing to our results. Top layer was not the main goal. It has been added to conduct research on a material with a floor structure. The aim was to check the validity of the verification of the base material (logs) before producing the base layer. Each verification causes losses.

- due to planar stability, it would be correct for the lowest pine layer also to be 3.0 mm thick and not only 1.5 mm, there is a risk of planar instability of the panel (lines 71-79)

This is our first research and when cutting poor quality material into a thicker veneer, we were afraid that it would crack and crumble during cutting. Of course you are right and this is to be checked in future studies.

- the technical parameters of gluing are incomplete and need to be supplemented and explained: why application up to 200 g/m2? Why a temperature of only 120 oC? Why an incredibly short pressing time of only 60 s? what kind of glue was it, was it really that reactive? (lines 93 - 100)

 

Explanation added, line 94-95

- in high-quality articles it is necessary to describe how the experimental material was obtained,  names and brands of all used equipment, manufacturers, countries, etc. 

The company we cooperated with did not agree to present their data. Hence, we could present the data of the equipment in our laboratories. While implementing the program, some data was considered confidential. In this case, confidentiality agreements were signed. As you know, this is often about cooperation with the industry. Explanation added in Acknowledgement part.

Information about our equipment is complete. Tiratest 2300 testing machine is better described, line 141-146

• there are non-traditional values ​​of conditioning of samples compared to valid EU standards - why? The conditioning temperature is a bit high, the humidity is a bit low and the conditioning time is extremely long for interior flooring (lines 101 - 104)

In terms of industry, they rarely stick to official standards.

- line 106: why was the follow-up research at 10 and 80% humidity? It is not enough to state, it must be justified.

Explanation added, line 110-114

- lines 125 - 136: if the density profile is measured, previously the diagram should have been clearly indicated, which only affects the density profile

Density profile tests were used to verify whether the samples from a given batch of material are similarly made and representative.

- fig. 4 and formulas 1 and 2 are completely unnecessary.             

And here we have a problem when we do not include it in the article, because other reviews demand the inclusion of such data, because if someone does not conduct such research or does it rarely, he or she demands that such information should be presented in the article in order not to search for it.

- there is a completely missing discussion in the article

A summary of each research is at the end of their description. Our research was 0-1. It is better or worse. The discussion in this case is short.

- apart from the Introduction, there is not a single citation in the whole article.

All information about research in similar fields is included in the introduction. Next, we could only quote the standards on which we relied.

• What about the novelty of this article? Are there any limitations in this research? 

A novelty in this article is the ability to avoid pre-segregation of the material and use it as it is.This increases the use of raw material and reduces production costs.These are studies with application and utilitarian potential.There are no limits when it comes to finding the best solutions.The problem is the need to cooperate with the industry that has the appropriate machines.

 

We very much hope that we have cleared up our doubts. English language was corrected.

 

Our best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with analysing the influence of the layered structure of the plywood layer made of low-quality wood on selected mechanical properties of flooring composites.

In lines 2-3, I’d recommend to revise the title of the provided manuscript making it more precise and informative to the readers. The most common name of Pinus sylvestris is Scots pine. In addition, the present title does not give the information that the veneers are intended for floorings.

The abstract of the manuscript (lines 8 to 18) is too general, a bit chaotic, and does not include any particular results of the research. I’d recommend to revise it completely.

The keywords (line 19) correspond to the title, aims and objectives of the manuscript. I’d recommend to replace ‘floor’ with ‘flooring’.

In line 30, please provide the full terms, i.e. ‘finite element method’ followed by its common abbreviation.

In line 37, I don’t agree at all with the statement about current state of research in the field of material efficiency: ‘lack of adequate research into the possibilities of raising it.’. On the contrary, there are numerous studies focused on successful utilization of wood waste and by-products into new valued-added applications, use of the so-called postconsumer wood products, cascading use of wood and wood-based materials, and other well-known practices related to the adoption of circular economy principles in wood and furniture industry. I’d recommend to significantly extend this part by including information and findings from previous research in the respective field.

In line 48, please provide the full terms, i.e. modulus of elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture (MOR), followed by their abbreviations.

In general, the Introduction part is not sufficient and must be significantly extended.

 In line 68, please provide information about the particular oak species used in the experiments.

In line 70, please provide relevant information about the mentioned enterprise which provided the oak material.

In line 71-72, please provide a better quality figure and explain why you have duplicated the dimensions of the different layers, providing them on both sides of the scheme.

In lines 94-99, please provide relevant information about the urea-formaldehyde adhesive applied. Please revise ‘glue’ to ‘adhesive’. Please explain and justify the choice of selected parameters, i.e. temperature, time and pressure applied.

In lines 102-106, please explain the need to conduction the samples twice, and the selected relative humidity values.

In line 116, please provide information of the CNC plotter used for carrying out the flatness measurement.

In line 131, please provide information about the equipment used for measuring the density profile.

In line 136, Figure 3 need better explanation, please revise. What is C-1, C-2, and C-3?

In line 147, please provide relevant information about the universal testing machine used (model, manufacturer, city, country, etc.)

In line 148, the provided Figure 4 is not of a good quality, please replace it.

Please explain why did you use previously obtained results, as included in the description of Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or why did you include the statement ‘Reproduced with permission from Piotr Beer, FOR-257 ESTS; published by MDPI, 2021’.

The presented results are not properly discussed. There is no comparison or reference with ANY previous or related studies on the topic. This represents a serious flaw of the manuscript.

The Conclusion part (lines 303-317) does not reflect the main findings of the research and must be completely revised.

The References cited are appropriate to the topic of the manuscript but their number is insufficient. In addition, some of them are not formatted in accordance with the journal requirements. Please refer to the Instructions for authors.

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you very much for your review which will improve our work !

The manuscript deals with analysing the influence of the layered structure of the plywood layer made of low-quality wood on selected mechanical properties of flooring composites.

In lines 2-3, I’d recommend to revise the title of the provided manuscript making it more precise and informative to the readers. The most common name of Pinus sylvestris is Scots pine. In addition, the present title does not give the information that the veneers are intended for floorings.

corrected

The abstract of the manuscript (lines 8 to 18) is too general, a bit chaotic, and does not include any particular results of the research. I’d recommend to revise it completely.

There are readers who only read abstracts. Hence, we have included all the information chronologically as it is presented in the article in accordance with the authors guide.

The keywords (line 19) correspond to the title, aims and objectives of the manuscript. I’d recommend to replace ‘floor’ with ‘flooring’.

corrected

In line 30, please provide the full terms, i.e. ‘finite element method’ followed by its common abbreviation.

corrected

In line 37, I don’t agree at all with the statement about current state of research in the field of material efficiency: ‘lack of adequate research into the possibilities of raising it.’. On the contrary, there are numerous studies focused on successful utilization of wood waste and by-products into new valued-added applications, use of the so-called postconsumer wood products, cascading use of wood and wood-based materials, and other well-known practices related to the adoption of circular economy principles in wood and furniture industry.

Of course, there is research into the increasing use of materials. Our point was that there is no research that makes it possible to fully use the materials without research in the field of material efficiency. The sentence was deleted.

I’d recommend to significantly extend this part by including information and findings from previous research in the respective field.

There is a lot of research on better use in the processing of roundwood, or improvement of the rotary cutting. It may take a book to discuss them, but it will add nothing to the content of the article. We know institutions that only do this. For example, at our Faculty, a lot of scientific papers have been written about sawmilling. In France in ENSAM Cluny is a scientific laboratory dealing with the optimization of the rotary cutting process. It is still not related to the topic of the article.

In line 48, please provide the full terms, i.e. modulus of elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture (MOR), followed by their abbreviations.

corrected

In general, the Introduction part is not sufficient and must be significantly extended.

We did not find any research on the subject of the article. There are only slightly related studies, and they add nothing to our results.

 In line 68, please provide information about the particular oak species used in the experiments.

Oak on the top layer was not the particular and the main goal. Any oak we could use. It has been added to conduct research on a material with a floor structure. The aim was to check the validity of the verification of the base material (logs) before producing the base layer. As it was not the main goal of the research and it did not change anything in the results. Hence, it was not subject to careful analysis.

In line 70, please provide relevant information about the mentioned enterprise which provided the oak material.

We received the oak from the research coordinating company. I have not received permission to disclose the names of the companies.

In line 71-72, please provide a better quality figure and explain why you have duplicated the dimensions of the different layers, providing them on both sides of the scheme.

The dimensions were defined and adapted to the products of the coordinating company (BIOSTRATEG strategic R&D program, agreement No BIOSTRATEG2/298950/1/NCBR/2016).

In lines 94-99, please provide relevant information about the urea-formaldehyde adhesive applied. Please revise ‘glue’ to ‘adhesive’. Please explain and justify the choice of selected parameters, i.e. temperature, time and pressure applied.

Corrected. Parameters explained, line 94-95

In lines 102-106, please explain the need to conduction the samples twice, and the selected relative humidity values.

Corrected. Explanation line 110-114

In line 116, please provide information of the CNC plotter used for carrying out the flatness measurement.

The most important thing in this device is the accuracy of the measurement, which is 0,1 mm. This has been completed. It is a unique device designed and manufactured by us.

In line 131, please provide information about the equipment used for measuring the density profile.

It is a standard device. The most important information are sampling every 0.02 mm and the speed of 0.05 mm/s. There is nothing else to add here.

In line 136, Figure 3 need better explanation, please revise. What is C-1, C-2, and C-3?

Density profile of 3 samples of quality C (C-1, C-2, C-3 - number of the sample). Changed.

In line 147, please provide relevant information about the universal testing machine used (model, manufacturer, city, country, etc.)

Corrected, line141-146

In line 148, the provided Figure 4 is not of a good quality, please replace it.

Corrected

Please explain why did you use previously obtained results, as included in the description of Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or why did you include the statement ‘Reproduced with permission from Piotr Beer, FOR-257 ESTS; published by MDPI, 2021’.

These are the results of the diploma thesis made by Paweł Mycka, the co-author of the publication. The thesis is not a publication. Publications are created on the basis of diploma theses. This “Reprodused with …..” we see first time in our life. I deleted it.

The presented results are not properly discussed. There is no comparison or reference with ANY previous or related studies on the topic. This represents a serious flaw of the manuscript.

Our research was 0-1. It is better or worse. The discussion in this case is short.

The Conclusion part (lines 303-317) does not reflect the main findings of the research and must be completely revised.

In our idea, it is not necessary to repeat the results of the research in the conclusion part. In the conclusions, we present what the results of the research show and are most important.

The References cited are appropriate to the topic of the manuscript but their number is insufficient. In addition, some of them are not formatted in accordance with the journal requirements. Please refer to the Instructions for authors.

References cited are examples of what major research is being conducted and the subsequent citing of references that are not the subject of the article will not change anything. Formatting is corrected.

 

Information about confidentiality of some data in included in Acknowledgments part.

We very much hope that we have cleared up doubts. English language was corrected.

 

Our best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

there is still plenty of unsolved issues within your manuscript. 

The abstract: Please revise it and add the results of your research.

The introduction: This part is insufficient, please check my previous comment.

Materials and methods: Please add more information about the material used (wood samples, UF resin) also about the methods used (density profile?).

 This manuscript is completely missing proper discussion of results with other authors.

Please revise conclusions part, be more precise about main findings of your research.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we presented our work in an unconventional way, although we hoped that it captured the essence of the research. However, if this is not accepted, then we have corrected the article and we hope that we are sticking to certain rules now. English, was corrected again by another translator. Our best regards, Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract of the manuscript (lines 8 to 18) is still too general, and does not include any particular results of the research. I’d recommend to further revise it.

In lines 35-43, please add some information and findings on the successful utilization of wood waste and by-products into new value-added applications, use of the so-called post-consumer wood products, cascading use of wood and wood-based materials, and other well-known practices related to the adoption of circular economy principles in wood and furniture industry. I had included the same remark in the first round review and it still has not been addressed properly.

Although improved, the Introduction part is still not sufficient and should be significantly extended, including more relevant references on the topic of the manuscript.

 In line 69, please provide information about the particular oak species used in the experiments.

In line 70, please provide relevant information about the mentioned enterprise which provided the oak material.

In line 72-73, please provide a better quality figure and explain why you have duplicated the dimensions of the different layers, providing them on both sides of the scheme.

In line 76, the correct name is Scots pine, please revise.

In lines 93-99, please provide relevant information about the urea-formaldehyde adhesive applied. Please explain and justify the choice of selected parameters, i.e. temperature, time and pressure applied – any references to previous publications or just recommendations by the plywood producer?

In lines 110 - 114, please explain why did you provide this text in Italics. The provided explanation is still not clear.

In line 119, please provide information of the CNC plotter used for carrying out the flatness measurement.

In line 131, please provide information about the equipment used for measuring the density profile.

In line 136, Figure 3 is not of a very good quality, please provide a clearer figure.

In line 142, please provide relevant information about the universal testing machine used (model, manufacturer, city, country, etc.)

In lines 142-146, the text does not provide any scientific information, please either revise or remove it.

The provided Figure 4 is not of a good quality, please replace it.

In line 238, please revise the title of Figure 5, i.e. ‘Testes’ is not grammatically correct, and the Figure does not contain tests, but obtained test results. The same comment applies to Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9.

The presented results are not properly discussed. There is no comparison or reference with ANY previous or related studies on the topic. This represents a serious flaw of the manuscript.

The Conclusion part (lines 300-317) does not reflect the main findings of the research and must be completely revised. The font size is also different, please revise.

The References cited are appropriate to the topic of the manuscript but their number is insufficient. Please add more relevant references. In addition, some of them are not formatted in accordance with the journal requirements. Please refer to the Instructions for authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we presented our work in an unconventional way, although we hoped that it captured the essence of the research. However, if this is not accepted, then we have corrected the article and we hope that we are sticking to certain rules now. English, was corrected again by another translator. Our best regards, Authors