Effects of Pressurized Superheated Steam Treatment on Dimensional Stability and Its Mechanisms in Surface-Compressed Wood
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All coment I conclude in docx file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
16-07-2022
Manuscript:
Title: Effects of Pressurized Superheated Steam Treatment on Dimensional Stability and its Mechanisms in Surface-compressed Wood
General comments
The manuscript sent for evaluation contains 14 pages of text with tables, figures and a reference list. The authors discussed the problem of shape stability of wood subjected to surface pressing and changes in its structure.
In the content, the authors refer to 45 items from the world literature that are thematically related to the subject of the manuscript. The authors cite 4 own publications, which is an acceptable share.
Overall, the text is correctly written and has a scientific significance for broadening the knowledge of the topic at hand. The introduction is relatively short, but it is related to the topic in question. In my opinion, there are no unnecessary text fillers. The methodology is well and detailed. On its basis, other authors may repeat the research. The obtained results are presented in the form of tables and graphs. They were well described and discussed. The discussion is correct, the authors refer to the quoted literature on the subject. The conclusions follow directly from the presented results.
I have doubts about the research and subject matter of the Forests journal. In my opinion, the described research is part of the topics related to the structure of wood, chemical structure and internal changes of the material which is wood. A more suitable magazine could be, for example, Materials or Polymers. On the Forests website https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/about there is the subject of "wood properties" and perhaps it is related to the research topic. In this respect, I leave the approval of the text for publication to the thematic editor.
I have no major comments regarding the content of the work and its evaluation on the merits. I believe that the submitted manuscript is well written and can be published in this form. Minor corrections indicated in the detailed comments should be taken into account.
I do not judge the correctness of the language as English is not my mother tongue.
Detailed comments
Paragraph 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 - do not start with the pictures. Split text and insert drawings into paragraphs, or move drawings to the end of a section.
Improve the quality of your graph drawings. Some lines are difficult to read, e.g. figures 1, 2, 3
Paragraph 3. Results - Change the name to "Results and Discussion". You submit your results here and have a discussion
Line 152-153. You enter the number of holes in the sieves. Enter the sieve surface on which the holes are or the size of the sieve holes
Line 183-185. Check the values. In table 1, the given EMC value is 10.74, 10.39, 8.55
Line 238-239. Has the significant change been confirmed statistically? If so, write about it
Author Response
Thanks very much for your careful review and reasonable comments. The issues you pointed out have been corrected as follows. We believe the manuscript has improved significantly with your help. Hope our responses are satisfactory.
1. Paragraph 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 - do not start with the pictures. Split text and insert drawings into paragraphs, or move drawings to the end of a section.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have adjusted the order of pictures and text about paragraph 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.
2. Improve the quality of your graph drawings. Some lines are difficult to read, e.g. figures 1, 2, 3
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have improved the quality of the graph drawings about figures 1, 2, 3.
3.Paragraph 3. Results - Change the name to "Results and Discussion". You submit your results here and have a discussion
Answer: According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have changed the name of "Results" to "Results and Discussion".
4.Line 152-153. You enter the number of holes in the sieves. Enter the sieve surface on which the holes are or the size of the sieve holes.
Answer: According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have added information about the size of the sieve holes.
5.Line 183-185. Check the values. In table 1, the given EMC value is 10.74, 10.39, 8.55
Answer: We are very sorry for this low-level error and have corrected it.
6.Line 238-239. Has the significant change been confirmed statistically? If so, write about it
Answer: According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have written about the results of the statistical analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This publication follows previous excellent publications of these authors. The manuscript has only minor problems to be solved before publication.
Line 10: I suggest reformulating this sentence, as shape stability is not the only one "most important" property, it is one of the most important properties.
The abstract is too general. Please add some results of your research, implications for further research, and the novelty of your research.
Please add more discussion to the Introduction part about the use of pressurized steam treatment in compressed wood.
Please add a statistical evaluation of results to the Materials and Methods part.
Lines 122-142: These explanations are not needed, there is enough to cite the standards.
Please add more detail about preparing samples for X-ray and SEM measurements.
In the Results and discussion part authors should discuss the statistical significance of the results.
The discussion of the results is well written.
Please add limitations of your study.
Also please add the novelty of your research and implications for practice and further research.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your careful review and reasonable comments. The issues you pointed out have been corrected as follows. We believe the manuscript has improved significantly with your help. Hope our responses are satisfactory.
1.Line 10: I suggest reformulating this sentence, as shape stability is not the only one "most important" property, it is one of the most important properties.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified this sentence.
2.The abstract is too general. Please add some results of your research, implications for further research, and the novelty of your research.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified the abstract.
3.Please add more discussion to the Introduction part about the use of pressurized steam treatment in compressed wood.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified the Introduction part.
4.Please add a statistical evaluation of results to the Materials and Methods part.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have added a statistical evaluation of results.
5.Lines 122-142: These explanations are not needed, there is enough to cite the standards.
Answer: We strongly agree with the experts, line122-142 has been deleted from the paper, and relevant standards and literature have been cited in the part of the experimental method.
6.Please add more detail about preparing samples for X-ray and SEM measurements.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have added more detail about preparing samples for X-ray and SEM measurements.
7.In the Results and discussion part authors should discuss the statistical significance of the results.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have discuss the statistical significance of the results.
8.Please add limitations of your study.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have added limitations of this study in the conclusion part.
9.Also please add the novelty of your research and implications for practice and further research.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have added the novelty of this research and implications for practice and further research in the conclusion part.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript „Effects of Pressurized Superheated Steam Treatment on Dimensional Stability and its Mechanisms in Surface-compressed Wood” presents the result of research on the mechanism behind the dimensional stabilization of compressed wood by superheated steam treatment. The experiments were well-planned and described, and the results were presented clearly. However, scientific explanations and discussions would be necessary for some places to give readers a broader view of the topic. More detailed comments and suggestions can be found in the .pdf file attached. Therefore, I recommend the paper for minor revision before publishing.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks very much for your careful review and reasonable comments. The issues you pointed out have been corrected as follows. We believe the manuscript has improved significantly with your help. Hope our responses are satisfactory.
1.Line 13, 18, 19: Abstract: Compressed wood? Complex? And the explanation about dimensional stability.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified the abstract about “the wood”, “compound” and clarified the dimensional stability.
2.Line 39:“post-treatment”Or pre-treatment - perhaps it would be worth mentioning this here as well ?
Answer: Post-treatment in this article refers to the shape fixation treatment of compressed wood after compression, , such as heat treatment, etc. According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified this sentence.
3.Line 85: Were the samples still heated during compressing? Please add the information.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have added the detailed information about sample preparation process.
4.Line 106, 107 109: Does the “quality”mean mass of the sample? What the Authors mean by balanced treatment? Please explain here.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified the “quality” and explained the balanced treatment.
5.Line 167: This is not an equation for calculating crystallinity index. Please correct it.
Answer: We are very sorry for this low-level error and have corrected it.
6.Line 187: Please name the specific components which undergo hyrolysis or cross-linking reactions.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have named the specific components which undergo hyrolysis or cross-linking reactions.
7.Line 297, 298: Why cellulose crystallinity increases? Please explain and provide appropriate literature references.
Answer: Thanks for reviewer's advice, we have explained and provided appropriate literature references in line 303-305.
8.Line 341, 355: Cross-lingages between what? Please specify.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have specified the cross-lingages between lignin.
9.Line 385: Please highlight the novlety of the research and provide a general conclusion important from both the sceintific and practicql perspectives.
Answer: According to the reviewer's advice, we have modified the conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
