Antimicrobial Activity of Slow Pyrolysis Distillates from Pine Wood Biomass against Three Pathogens
, Essi Keränen 1, Mikko Selenius 2, Teemu Vilppo 2, Olavi Raatikainen 1 and Jenni Korhonen 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors wrote a decent paper that has novelty. However, the manuscript needs substantial changes before publication.
1. The chemical components of the pine should be mentioned and discussed.
2. The manuscript lacks explanatory images, especially in the "materials and methods" section.
3. Significant changes are required for the "conclusion" section. The conclusion is too brief, and it resembles the abstract.
4. Research limitations, research practical implications (deliverables), and future directions must be discussed at the end of the "results and discussion" section and then summarized in the "conclusion" section.
5. Avoid reference lumping [18-24]. Choose the most recent and relevant references for each part. No more than three references are recommended for a single short expression.
6. I suggest that the authors add more relevant papers to the introduction. Some suggested papers are as follows:
Bahmani, M., Schmidt, O., Fathi, L., & Frühwald, A. (2016). Environment-friendly short-term protection of palm wood against mold and rot fungi. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 11(4), 239-247.
Bahmani, M., & Schmidt, O. (2018). Plant essential oils for environment-friendly protection of wood objects against fungi. Maderas. Ciencia y tecnología, 20(3), 325-332.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the manuscript is interesting, novel and the whole work provides new knowledge. Nevertheless, there are several issues to be addressed before publication and here I summarize the most significant ones towards the improvement of the manuscript.
In line 34, you rather keep it in single form (industry not industries). I would propose to make some general statements for Europe, and avoid focusing strictly to Finland from the beginning of the introduction (in order to highlight in this way the significance of your research that concerns not only one country but several others of similar situation). For example in lines 34-39, is that only for Finland or the whole Europe? I am not sure if that would be proper to present the hypothesis of this article in the first paragraph of the introduction. In lines 40-43, please provide a reference.
In lines 53-56, you rather describe the changes implemented in the wood mass during the temperature increase, without presenting these four single phases, since all these changes take place almost parallel in many cases and the by-products of the one "lets say" phase or chemical change are becoming part/polymerized etc. during another phase and that is the reason why it is difficult to comprehend in total the subsequent changes. Please, incorporate in this point the most significant chemical changes induced during the temperature rise found (among other sources) in DOI: 10.5552/drvind.2021.2026. You should also add a brief comment on the temperature region of extractives chages/loss/re-polymerization etc. You rather use the word "hemicelluloses" in plural form. In the end of introduction, please provide also the exact species for Salmonella genus.
In materials and methods, you should refer the scientific names of the wood species used in the experimental work. Which was the storage duration for dust to stay frozen? Please, provide some, at least one, image of the specimens, since that would be very attractive and interesting to the the readership. Provide also all the details for the model and manufacturer of all the devices/chambers used in the experimental work. The statistical analysis results were not highlighted adequetly in my opinion. The results are however well-discussed in the section "discussion", but the conclusions are rather brief. Please add in conclusions the intensity level/ significance of this antimicrobial action of distillates.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily and made required changes which improved the manuscript's quality significantly. Therefore, the revised version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.
