Bio-Based Phase Change Materials for Wooden Building Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this manuscript is interesting, but it is not clear to the reader what is exactly the topic, what is the purpose and the significance of this work. Several issues have to be addressed in my opinion. The introduction section is too generic and it is hard for the reader to understand what is the topic of the research work. The BPCMs are being used in introduction without providing the explanation. This term is generic by itself and needs to be clarified (not only in abstract, but in introduction with more details). The literature review is absent, even though I understand that the proposed methodology has not been attempted so far, you could provide a description of the state-of-the-art of the topic. Since the bibliogaphy utilized in the article could be considered quite poor, I would propose to the authors, among other sources, to use the following article in order to incorporate significant relevant knowledge from https://doi.org/10.3390/f10121111, concerning mould action against softwood/hardwoods and efficacy of relevant chemical treatments/impregnation. Generally, the authors should make an effort to explain the use of BPCM, the purposes, approach etc. In line 74, why is it significant to test impregnated wood durability against the specific species? Generally, in my opinion, the hypothesis of the article is not at all clear (what is the objective of the imprognation, where do you base the hypothesis since the theoretical background was not analyzed/described adequately).  

In materials and methods, where was the wood obtained from/grown? How many different trees have been used in the experimental work? In chapter 2.2, which as the moisture content of wood at the time of impregnation? Did you impregnate sapwood or heartwood? (since the extracts content changes and the biological durability of wood is closely related to the extracts content). Wat was the standard used for leaching rate test? In line 130, the phrase "the treatment is durable" needs improvement. Generally, all the section materials-methods to make some clarifications in the description of methodology. Please, provide at least one image of your samples, during impregnation or from the termite test. That would be extremely interesting and helpful to the readers. In line 136, did you describe these modifications in the text? Figure 1 was absent from the text. I could not find any statistical analysis of the results (neither in materials-methods, nor in results section). I could not even find the respective standard deviation values of the results.

Even in conclusions, it is not totally clear what is the purposes and significance of this work and the respective findings. Please, make the necessary changes to highlight them in introduction and in conclusions as well. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1 , I put in a attached file the comments to your requests.

I use the same files for both to simplify the revision and why because, sometime, the two reviewer's request are connected or the same.

Thank you a lot for giving me the possibility of improving my paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract clearly states the content of the article.

line 96 - Origin of coconut oil fatty acids (CoFA) is not specified 

The methods section (2.2. Impregnation of wood samples with BPCMs) does not explain why two different methods of impregnation were used.

line 162 - Figure 1 - missing figure

line 185/190- figure 2 is named figure 1 (a) and (b) - The picuter 1(a) is in a mirror image, which disturbs the viewer.

line 200/210- figure 3 is named figure 2.

line 168/181/- RC – reference controls- it would be  better CS- control sample or RS- reference sample

The article is disturbed by the information in the methodology that part of the study was conducted for 24 to 48 weeks (lines 145-147), but in the results it turns out that these studies are not completed and partial results will be presented (lines 175-178). This creates confusion - it would look better if the methodology stated explicitly.  

In my perception, lines 224-237 should not be in the results, they would fit better in the literature.

The literature list should be expanded to include recent publications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, thank you a lot for giving me the possibility and the suggestions to improve my paper. I put in the attached file ( the same for both R1 and R2) the word file with my comments to your requests.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 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.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1 ,

thank you a lot for your second round review.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article touches on an interesting issue. Unfortunately, the introduction to the research topic in my opinion is not strictly related to the research results. 

Other forms of methods for modifying wood to increase its durability are missing from the review. It suggests reading the following articles, for example. 

DOI:10.5604/01.3001.0014.5967

DOI:10.15376/biores.15.2.3915-3929

DOI:10.3390/ma14061491

The article lacks statistical elaboration (e.g. ANOVA TEST). Are the authors able to enrich the paper with such a study? 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

In the introcduction The Authors focused on the Phase Change materials and its application in the status of art. We didn't consider this approach a wood modification for increasing the indoor comfort and to constrast the use of heating source with the utilization of PCM. We studied the extra biocidal properties of this compounds as an added value. At moment no statistical test are reported at this preliminary state.