Biological Resistance of Acetylated Radiata Pine, European Beech, and MDF against Marine Borers at Three Italian Sites after Five Years Immersion
, Federico Stefani 1, Monica Andrenacci 2, Marco Faimali 2, Irene Guarneri 3, Marco Sigovini 3 and Davide Tagliapietra 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
It is an interesting article, but it needs some improvement and some additions.
I present my comments in a synthetic form.
General remark: the names of the tested wood species and the way of writing them should be standardized throughout the text. The correct nomenclature is regulated by the EN standard:
EN 13556:2003 Round and sawn timber – Nomenclature of timbers used in Europe.
According to EN 13556, the correct wood names are as follows:
trade name (Latin name)
gaboon (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre) – possibly French trade name: okoumé
sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.)
European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)
European oak (Quercus robur L.)
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)
radiata pine (Pinus radiata D.Don)
Examples of places to be improved:
Line 2
is: beech
and
should be: European beech
Line 13 -15
is: Fagus sylvatica (European beech) Castanea sativa (chestnut), Quercus robur (European oak)
and should be European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.), European oak (Quercus robur L.)
…
Line 44
is: scots pine
and should be: Scots pine
Line 54
is: scots pine sapwood, beech, oak heartwood
and should be: Scots pine sapwood, European beech, European oak heartwood
Line 55
is: Oukumé (Aucoumea klaineana)
and should be: gaboon (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre)
or
okoumé (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre)
Line 65
is: on Pinus radiata and on Fagus sylvatica
and should be: on radiata pine and on European beech
Similar fixes: lines: 69, 104-107, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, table 3, table 4, 161, 176
Materials – lines 78-103
The description of field conditions for testing wood samples specifies only their geographic location and water temperature data. My guess is that the water temperature is in degrees Celsius, but the units should be specified.
There is no significant information about the salinity of the water and the depth at which the wood samples were placed and how they were arranged.
This information should be supplemented because it has a significant impact on the obtained research results, in my opinion.
Line 146
Figure 2 (in fact, it's figure 1)
Only two radiographs are shown here. Other samples with varying degrees of damage should be presented in Figure 1. Showing only two acetylated samples is definitely an incomplete picture.
There are some editing errors in the text too and they should be corrected:
e.g.
Line 29
is: [2].One
and should be: [2]. One
Line 42
is: 60.000 m3
and should be:
60.000 m3
Line 122
is: 18 x 24 cm2
and should be:
18 x 24 cm2
Line 127
is: 3(severe
and should be: 3 (severe
Line 128
is: period .After
and should be: period. After
Some references are incorrect:
Line 130
is: by Turner [12]
and should be: by Turner [11]
Line 136
is: [13]
and should be: [12]
Line 168
is: [11]
and should be: [13]
There is no complete supplementary information required by the publisher (Forestry template). The following items were omitted: Author Contributions and Statement.
The word References is missing before the publication list.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear R1 I would like to thank you for give me the possibility of improving my paper .
I put as attached file the total comments to reviewers 1.2.3
The comments to R 1
Reviewer 1
R1 According to EN 13556, the correct wood names are as follows:
trade name (Latin name)
gaboon (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre) – possibly French trade name: okoumé
sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.)
European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)
European oak (Quercus robur L.)
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)
radiata pine (Pinus radiata D.Don)
Examples of places to be improved:
Line 2
is: beech
and
should be: European beech
Line 13 -15
is: Fagus sylvatica (European beech) Castanea sativa (chestnut), Quercus robur (European oak)
and should be European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.), European oak (Quercus robur L.)
…
Line 44
is: scots pine
and should be: Scots pine
Line 54
is: scots pine sapwood, beech, oak heartwood
and should be: Scots pine sapwood, European beech, European oak heartwood
Line 55
is: Oukumé (Aucoumea klaineana)
and should be: gaboon (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre)
or
okoumé (Aucoumea kleineana Pierre)
Line 65
is: on Pinus radiata and on Fagus sylvatica
and should be: on radiata pine and on European beech
Similar fixes: lines: 69, 104-107, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, table 3, table 4, 161, 176
A I have changed as requested in all paper.
R1 Materials – lines 78-103
The description of field conditions for testing wood samples specifies only their geographic location and water temperature data. My guess is that the water temperature is in degrees Celsius, but the units should be specified.
A Corrected.
R1 There is no significant information about the salinity of the water and the depth at which the wood samples were placed and how they were arranged.
This information should be supplemented because it has a significant impact on the obtained research results, in my opinion.
A I add a sentence lines 107-108
R1 Only two radiographs are shown here. Other samples with varying degrees of damage should be presented in Figure 1. Showing only two acetylated samples is definitely an incomplete picture.
A I substituted the figure with other where more specimens are exposed.
R1 Line 146
Figure 2 (in fact, it's figure 1)
A Corrected
There are some editing errors in the text too and they should be corrected:
e.g.
Line 29
is: [2].One
and should be: [2]. One
Line 42
is: 60.000 m3
and should be:
60.000 m3
Line 122
is: 18 x 24 cm2
and should be:
18 x 24 cm2
Line 127
is: 3(severe
and should be: 3 (severe
Line 128
is: period .After
and should be: period. After
Some references are incorrect:
Line 130
is: by Turner [12]
and should be: by Turner [11]
Line 136
is: [13]
and should be: [12]
Line 168
is: [11]
and should be: [13]
A Corrected.
R1 There is no complete supplementary information required by the publisher (Forestry template). The following items were omitted: Author Contributions and Statement.
A Added
The word References is missing before the publication list.
A Added
Regards
Sabrina Palanti
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a useful data set with some clear findings. The length of the testing period is a key feature, but so is the range of sites used. The text does not make sufficient mention of the rationale for this experimental design in the Introduction or of the significance of the range of sites for the Discussion and Conclusions. It would be worth comparing this study with the work of Borges on teredinid distribution in European waters when discussing this. It would also be worth mentioning findings of other studies in which the untreated wood species and panel products used in this study were investigated. In the Conclusions or Discussion, it would be worth highlighting the fact that high levels of attack on control panels demonstrated that the experimental panels had been subjected to a rigorous test.
The information in lines 82 to 103 would be better presented in a table, enabling the reader to compare the characteristics of the sites more readily. On the other hand, the information in Table 4 could instead be simply presented in one or two sentences.
Suggestions for editing:
L11: the standard number will not be familiar to all readers. The standard could be explained in the main text and "for use in temperate seawaters" would be sufficient in the abstract
16: exposure rather than exposition
18.19: suggest "However, the untreated European timber species showed a low resistance to marine wood borers....."
26: need to specify what exothermic reaction
29: rather than "these are exposed in review" perhaps better to say "which are reviewed by Sanders et al."
38: Arnhem, the Netherlands
38-39: suggest adjustment - "unsuccessful, but the equipment used and the intellectual property were taken over by..."
41: acetylation of wood in 2007
42: increased to 60,000m3 by 2018
44: Scots pine with initial capital for Scots (also elsewhere in the manuscript.
50: content of acetyl groups
55: Two further...
56: an acetylated medium density fibreboard....
66: italics for species names (here and in a number of other places)
67: sylvestris
72, 73: suggest the following wording: "During the test, new untreated control panels of Scots pine were added each year to replace heavily tunnelled control panels."
74, 75: delate as this is a repeat.
80: in Venice
98: euryhaline? brackish?
100: 30.9 deg C in the winter months?
111: replace "skipped" with "was not conducted" and omit "in the useful period"
112: dismantled rather than dismissed
114: the cumulative days of immersion
122: are these the X-ray plate dimensions?
128-129: This sentence is a repetition of 111-112.
130: may be worth mentioning the features used to distinguish between species.
138: Panels of acetylated...... were, on the other hand, completely sound.
151: heavily attacked
155: The species of Limnoria was not determined.
169, 170: At Scarlino only Nototeredo....navalis were found and some tunnels of Limnoria were observed.
Author Response
Dear R2 Thank you a lot for your stylistic revision and for giving me the possibility of improving my paper.
I put as attached file the total comments to three reviewers.
Here the comments to yours requests:
Reviewer 2
R2This is a useful data set with some clear findings. The length of the testing period is a key feature, but so is the range of sites used. The text does not make sufficient mention of the rationale for this experimental design in the Introduction or of the significance of the range of sites for the Discussion and Conclusions. It would be worth comparing this study with the work of Borges on teredinid distribution in European waters when discussing this. It would also be worth mentioning findings of other studies in which the untreated wood species and panel products used in this study were investigated. In the Conclusions or Discussion, it would be worth highlighting the fact that high levels of attack on control panels demonstrated that the experimental panels had been subjected to a rigorous test.
A Some new sentences and reference for comparing results with previous researches are put in the Results and discussion such as lines 199-216
R2 The information in lines 82 to 103 would be better presented in a table, enabling the reader to compare the characteristics of the sites more readily. On the other hand, the information in Table 4 could instead be simply presented in one or two sentences.
A I substituted the sentences lines 82-103 with table 1.
R2Suggestions for editing:
L11: the standard number will not be familiar to all readers. The standard could be explained in the main text and "for use in temperate seawaters" would be sufficient in the abstract
16: exposure rather than exposition
18.19: suggest "However, the untreated European timber species showed a low resistance to marine wood borers....."
26: need to specify what exothermic reaction
29: rather than "these are exposed in review" perhaps better to say "which are reviewed by Sanders et al."
38: Arnhem, the Netherlands
38-39: suggest adjustment - "unsuccessful, but the equipment used and the intellectual property were taken over by..."
41: acetylation of wood in 2007
42: increased to 60,000m3 by 2018
44: Scots pine with initial capital for Scots (also elsewhere in the manuscript.
50: content of acetyl groups
55: Two further...
56: an acetylated medium density fibreboard....
66: italics for species names (here and in a number of other places)
67: sylvestris
72, 73: suggest the following wording: "During the test, new untreated control panels of Scots pine were added each year to replace heavily tunnelled control panels."
74, 75: delate as this is a repeat.
80: in Venice
98: euryhaline? brackish?
100: 30.9 deg C in the winter months?
111: replace "skipped" with "was not conducted" and omit "in the useful period"
112: dismantled rather than dismissed
114: the cumulative days of immersion
122: are these the X-ray plate dimensions?
128-129: This sentence is a repetition of 111-112.
130: may be worth mentioning the features used to distinguish between species.
138: Panels of acetylated...... were, on the other hand, completely sound.
151: heavily attacked
155: The species of Limnoria was not determined.
169, 170: At Scarlino only Nototeredo....navalis were found and some tunnels of Limnoria were observed.
A all the above corrections are performed
Regards Sabrina Planti
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript of this brief report is dealing with the biological resistance of different acetylated materials under use class 5 (marine conditions. The topic has relevance, as the need for highly durable wood material is continuously increasing.
Although, the testing methods are well chosen, the evaluation of the data is poorly presented. E.g., is there a significant difference between the three different locations, regarding attack classification? What was the frequency of the identified attacking organisms in case of each tested material and testing site? Was there a difference in species of attacking organisms in case of materials and sites? Et. c.
Please explain your findings/results and support them by references. There is no discussion of the results, only pure presentation of them.
Additionally, some specific remarks to the paper.
Line 40-42: Please reword this sentence.
Line 76-77: Please remove this duplicated sentence.
Line 157-159: The title/description of Table 4 is unclear. What does this table show? Do I understand well that it is about durability classes of control specimens as a result of the tests? Please reword it.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, Thank you to giving me the possibility of improving my paper.
Here the comments regarding your revisions, in the attached file the all comments.
Reviewer 3 R3
The manuscript of this brief report is dealing with the biological resistance of different acetylated materials under use class 5 (marine conditions. The topic has relevance, as the need for highly durable wood material is continuously increasing.
Although, the testing methods are well chosen, the evaluation of the data is poorly presented. E.g., is there a significant difference between the three different locations, regarding attack classification? What was the frequency of the identified attacking organisms in case of each tested material and testing site? Was there a difference in species of attacking organisms in case of materials and sites? Et. c.
Please explain your findings/results and support them by references. There is no discussion of the results, only pure presentation of them.
Additionally, some specific remarks to the paper.
Line 40-42: Please reword this sentence.
Performed
Line 76-77: Please remove this duplicated sentence.
Performed
R3 Line 157-159: The title/description of Table 4 is unclear. What does this table show? Do I understand well that it is about durability classes of control specimens as a result of the tests? Please reword it.
A I removed Table 4 .
Regards
Sabrina Palanti
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made considerable improvement on the manuscript.
Figure 1 is missing from the manuscript, please add it.
