Effect of Moisture Content and Preservatives on the Discoloration of Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Lumber
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is a kind of combination of review paper with the addition of some experimental results. However, there is plenty of everything in the paper, without very clear purpose of the paper. Also, there are some issues mentioned that are not at all described in the discussion or are only partially mentioned: for instance - comparison with Afina wood, lacquer, sawing - cutting tool recession, etc. I have also quite some other more specific comments, see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I write to acknowledge and appreciate your concise and candid review feedback given and to inform you that all have been addressed carefully in the new version of the manuscript and responds to the comments are hereby attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments to the Authors
Abstract
Abstract is not understandable. What did you mean by this sentence: „Wood samples of oil palm were conditioned in a kiln to a moisture content of 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40% and 50%, while other samples were conditioned to serve as the control“. What other samples? The preservative treated boards were kiln dried to moisture contents of 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% ?
„Though, Dursban 4E is a widely used preservative in the timber industry, oil palm lumber samples of 40 mm thick immersed in Dursban 4E for 48 hours and conditioned in a kiln to a moisture content of 30% discolored from week 2.“
Where did this information come from? Where is that in the article?
1. Introduction
In the introduction, it should be explained why the discoloration occurs, why the preservative Dursban 4E was chosen, why sea water………….
2. Materials and Methods
This section lacks sufficient detail to allow other scientists to repeat the study.
This chapter is not written clearly enough and in sufficient detail. It is not clear how the test samples were made. What was the age of the oil palm, the diameter, how were the boards sawn? from which part of the palm trunk?
The following is not clear: When were the samples finished with a coating? How is the coating prepared? How many layers were applied and in what way? Were the samples sanded before applying the coating? Why was the coating applied at all? How was the content of alpha cellulose determined? On which samples? Why did you choose Afina wood for comparison? The scientific (Latin) name of this wood is missing.
3.0. RESSULTS AND DISCUSSION
„Moisture content obtained was 402.78 %.“ When was this moisture content obtained? Is that mean value?
…“straight about 0.304 m to 0.61 mm in diameter“ mm?
I assume that in Table 1 are the results of your measurements. They should be compared with the results in the article: Shibata et al.: Characterization in Chemical Composition of the Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jie/87/5/87_5_383/_article
Please check Table 1 for starch content.
Omar et al. established that „mean extracted starch content was 4.9%, 7.2% and 8.8% for the outer, middle and core portion of oil palm trunk, respectively. See: Nur Syuhada Omar, Edi Suhaimi Bakar, Nurulasikin Md Jalil, Paridah Md Tahir, Wan Md Zin Wan Yunus: Distribution of Oil Palm Starch for Different Levels and Portions of Oil Palm Trunk
https://www.neliti.com/publications/334914/distribution-of-oil-palm-starch-for-different-levels-and-portions-of-oil-palm-tr#id-section-content
Figure7, Figure 8: Where is the preparation of these samples described?
Samples immersed in sea water should be compared with those immersed in fresh water
It is not clear on which samples the appearance of surface checks, end checks and mold was monitored. Other people's research is listed in the results, not your results. The article should be rewritten and clearly describe the goal, methods and results, and compare it with the results of other authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I write to acknowledge reception of the comments mad on the manuscript and inform you that they were fair, and I appreciate them. They have all been addresses in the new version of the manuscript and here please find the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Compared to the previous version, this one is much better. However, I have still one remark. Figure 4 is not at all mentioned and described in the text of paper, but it should be. And for this Figure, it is still not described / explained the drastically different appearance of the samples in the last column at 50 % MC: the texture cannot be seen at all, but only dark (black) squares with some small white spots. I even thought that in the version of the paper I got for the review, there is a technical error, not showing the right appearance of the samples? See what do I see in the attached file. Is this technically OK? If yes, it needs an explanation in the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for the feedback.
They have all been addressed, however, the dark section of the figures could be due to downloading delays. Please there is no such image in the figure.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
