Impact of Sugar Beet Pulp Share on Selected Physical and Mechanical Properties of Particleboards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear authors,

your manuscript has a lot of typing errors, punctuation errors, and comma errors. This seems disrespectful or gives the impression that you do not care about the article itself. The same applies to the blank page 10. The layout of your tables does not correspond to the journal's specifications (e.g. line thickness and table width). The formatting of the sources does not correspond to the journal's specifications. An entry for the "Data Availability Statement" is missing. You often formulate very awkwardly. I have highlighted examples in the attached document. I recommend that you use an editing service (language and layout) to raise your article to a higher level. Likewise, I have given you a suggestion for the layout of Table 2. I have pointed out to you any errors in the content that I have noticed. For example: line 99 Plywood, the number of boards per variant is not given, line 101 EN 317 does not describe water absorption, line 206 summary of results. In chapter 3 you could insert sub-chapters. Then the reader can find his way around more quickly. The results could be described more systematically. Now you describe sometimes one aspect, sometimes the other aspect. But not for all results all aspects comprehensively and uniformly.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I can find neither a table nor a graph under the given link (source) to support the statement. One can only download raw data oneself. How about compiling the data you used and include it as an appendix (supplementary material)?

The address mentioned is the FAOSTAT database, where anyone can verify the data referred to in the manuscript on the volume of particleboard production in 2020, as well as how much the production of these materials was in individual years, both for individual countries, regions and the world as a whole. Therefore, the authors believe that it is unnecessary to include more detailed data in the manuscript. The information provided is only intended to give an idea of the general trend and scale of particleboard production.

 

It remains to be seen whether this can be read from the source. You surely mean chapter 1.2 by Irle and Barbu?  Then you could also be more precise and name the page number in the source ([2] (pp. 3-4)) and refer to the chapter in the bibliography.

Irle, M.; Barbu, M.C. Wood-Based Panel Technology. In Wood-Based Panels—An Introduction for Specialists; Thoemen, H., Irle, M., Sernek, M., Eds.; Brunel University Press: London, UK, 2010; pp. 1–94.

A given literature is not cited only in this one place, so the authors made a general citation of the book, as they considered that showing different chapters of the same book as separate references would artificially enlarge the volume of the work.

 

I still don't understand why high drying costs speak for the use as raw material.

In the wood industry, the drying process of raw material for particleboard production is carried out even with standard wood raw material. Therefore, SBP drying should not generate additional costs. In contrast, in the case of the feed industry, in terms of the nutritional value of feed produced from SBP and other feed extraction technologies, the SBP drying process is considered to generate additional costs.

 

I think this sentence is not needed. If you whant to keep it, you have to say that the boards consists also of adhesive. If you delete the sentence, you have 3 blocks after wards: SBP, particles and adhesive. That would be clearly laid out.

Changes have been made.

 

define abbriviation before first use

Changes have been made.

 

What was the amount of boards per variant? Did you do only one or three (n=3) or what?

Relevant information was included in the manuscript.

 

Why dont you give it in secounds? Why not using SI units?

SI units are used.

 

This standard does not describe water absorption. Simultaneous to the swelling in thickness, the increase of mass after immersion in water was determined. The mass of absorbed water is expressed as a percentage of the initial test specimen weight and designated as water absorption (WA).

Relevant information was included in the manuscript.

 

The table is difficult to read. An idea for an alternative is attached to this document (see last page).

The table was corrected as suggested by the Reviewer. The authors did not include the "coefficient of variation" column as it would be unnecessary repetition of data already contained in the table. The coefficient of variation results from the standard deviation and the arithmetic mean - which are included in the table.

 

I don't find this sentence and the next one quite positioned here. Perhaps it is just the way the sentence is structured that makes it seem as if it belongs in the aim of the article in the introduction or material and methods (approach). When analyzing the results in respect to the requirements given for Panel Type P2 in EN 312:Year-Month, it ...I don't think it's to your disadvantage to check again.

Appropriate correction has been made in the manuscript.

 

Statistical? For the comparison of the bending strength with the value from EN 312, it was not stated that a statistical test was used. As I understand it, you only looked to see if the mean value was nominally lower than the value from EN 312. And in case of MOE you use a statistical test? So you have looked to see whether it is statistically certain that the mean value, taking into account its range of variation (standard deviation), is smaller than the value from the norm?

The sentence has been redacted. Indeed, it was not a statistical analysis but an analysis of the averages obtained for individual variants.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript has been generally improved.

However, a few additional explanations need to be added to the text, and some typewriting errors should be corrected as detailed below:

 

- The sentence on p.2 r.87-88 is still unclear. Please modify it as follows:

“The boards were produced using a ZUP-NYSA PH-1LP25 hydraulic press at a unit pressing pressure of 2.5 MPa, a temperature of 180°C and pressing...”

 

- Please integrate the sentence on p.3 r.101-102 as follows:

“Briefly, samples were completely soaked in distilled water at room temperature for 2 h and 24 h, in a way that their possible dimensional changes were not limited.”

 

- As I said in my previous comments, the sentence on p.4 r.149-152 seems to be Lapalissian. Please amend it as follows:

“This proves that it is mainly the SBP share that determines the MOR and MOE of the manufactured particleboards, thus evidencing that SBP share will expectedly affects all the other panel properties.”

 

- The number of typos is greatly increased in this version. I found the ones reported here, but I encourage Authors to check again the whole manuscript:

o   r.17: fallowing

o   r.18: odulus

o   r.30: are in this case is

o   r.30: particles. ,

o   r.39: production particleboards (‘of’ is missing)

o   r.43: Itis

o   r.49: or in a paper manufacture (should be ‘or in paper manufacture’)

o   r.51: production . (unnecessary space before the dot)

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review. The manuscript has been revised according to the Reviewer's comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The manuscript has been revised according to the suggestion and comments from the reviewers. It can be accepted as the current conditions.

Author Response

  Thank you for your thorough review of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your detailed answers. With the explanations I could understand details. This refers in particular to the point about the high drying costs of SBP. I find it a pity that you did not take my understanding problems as an opportunity to explain obviously unclear points in more detail in the manuscript. It is to be hoped that I alone had problems in understanding and that all future readers will manage without further explanations. Since my impression is that you are satisfied with your article as it stands, I would like to give you my approval. After all, everyone has their own standards and the text is ok as it is. One can always do more and perfect it further.

All the best to you.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

it would do your article good to revise it conscientiously. Many things can be worked through in a clearer and more sorted way. This applies to the entire article. I find it positive that you deal with statistics. However, it would be important that you take the reader along more and explain more. I think you have not yet clearly worked out your main result. If your results are reliable, then you have found a way to produce lightweight particleboard that meets the properties of conventional board. Please see my comments in the attached pdf document.

Please consider publishing your experimental results as "Supplementarry Material"! This way your results can be verified.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,   The subject of the manuscript is interesting to readers.

The introduction could be supplemented by more literature data from recent years. The material and methods section is well-structured and detailed.

The author used formaldehyde-containing glue in his work for obtaining particleboards, which is not environmentally friendly. Therefore, formaldehyde emission tests should be carried out and the results compared to European standards.

More attention could also be paid to formaldehyde-free adhesives.

Editing of the English language throughout the manuscript is necessary.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is generally well written and well structured. However, several points need to be addressed before it can be considered as suitable for publication. I detail these points below:

-          Authors stated in several points in the manuscript that density did not significantly affect several panel properties, including the mechanical ones and the water absorption. However (and this is my observation), Authors never measured the actual density of panels, whereas I assume that the values they reported (550 and 650 kg/m3) are those expected according to the preparation procedure. Well, depending on the procedure adopted, the expected values may differ from the actual ones, as there will be a planar distribution of densities within each prepared panel. In fact, centre samples are usually denser than the outer ones, and the expected density would actually be an average density that does not always reflect the values of specimens really tested. Indeed, the outer samples could even be discarded, at least in principle. Therefore, Authors should report the density measurements of the sample they tested or, alternatively, explain how they can be sure that the reported values are the “true” densities of the specimens.

-          Authors should make an effort to provide an explanation of the results obtained. For instance, they found similar values for MOR (9.9 and 9.4 MPa) between 25%/650kg/m3 and 25%/550kg/m3. The same applies to the 50% of SBP share. Whereas for pine particles this does not apply (values go from 15.6 to 10.8 MPa, which belong to different statistical groups). Thus, Authors should spend a few words to explain this in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Similar observation can be also done for MOE.

 -          And similar considerations can be made for IB: why does the introduction of SBP improve the characteristics (IB) of the product? Why 25% yes and 50% no (or less)? Does this also explain the MOR and MOE data? And why does density not play a role?

 -          The data shown in Figure 5 are very scattered and it is difficult to find relationships between the various groups. E.g., Authors do not comment on the proximity of Variant D to IB, nor on the proximity of Variant F to S2H, while Variant E is on the opposite quadrant. And what about the distance between the two TS and WA groups? What the Authors say on p. 6 r.191-202 can also be stated without the support of PCA analysis. It seems to me that this part can be deleted without the work losing strength: as nothing emerges clearly, one can say whatever one wants.

 -          It should be made clear to readers, at the end of the introductory section, what the objectives of the research are, and clarify well what differentiates this work from previous ones.

 -          The sentence on p.4 r.134-135 (“Thereby, it can be expected that addition of SBP may have more favorable influence on lightweight panels”) it is not clear and should be explained better.

 -          The sentence on p.4 r.140-142 (“If the SBP share predominantly determines the properties of the MOR and MOE, its properties will largely determine the properties of the manufactured particleboards.”) seems to be Lapalissian. It can be deleted without the text losing clarity.

-          In contrast, the subsequent sentence (p.4 r.142-145) is incomplete and should be supplemented. Does the quoted papers confirm or deny the data reported by Authors, and why?

 -          The EN 312 standard sets different requirements depending on the class intended for the panel, so it is necessary to specify which class in particular Authors are referring to on p.4 r.155. This also applies to MOR and MOE.

 -          Can the Authors speculate on what the untested factors mentioned on p.4 r.158 might be? The same applies to p.5 r.180.

 

-          Some methodological details are missing in the manuscript or are unclear:

o   Authors wrote “The boards were produced using a ZUP-NYSA PH-1LP25 hydraulic press with a maximum unit pressing pressure of 2.5 MPa”. This pressure capacity seems very low to me. Moreover, a load capacity of the press is usually given. By the way, what pressure was actually used?

o   When describing the PCA data in Figure 5 it is necessary to indicate what the points of each Variant refer to. Did the Authors group selected characteristics together? Which ones?

o   Similarly, what do the points of MOR and MOE represent? How were they obtained? i.e. what values do they refer to? Did the Authors put together all the MORs/MOEs of each variant? Of course, the same applies to the other characteristics.

 

-          Several typing errors are present in the manuscript. I strongly encourage Authors to double check carefully the manuscript. I report below some of these errors, but others can be also present elsewhere.

o   ‘Desnity’ in the header of Table 1.

o   The pressing factor should be expressed in s/mm (p.2, r.88).

o   When talking about the tests for the evaluation of water absorption and thickness swelling, how were the specimens placed in contact with water?

o   No superscripts are used in all measurements units all over the manuscript (e.g. kg/m3, N/mm2 etc.).

 

-          Be careful with the section of Acknowledgments.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

1. There are some new publications on this topic recent years. You may add the information to your manuscript such as :(1)Kamran Choupani Chaydarreh et al.  2022, https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-022-02052-3; 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114682; 2021, Industrial Crops & Products,2021, 161:113221

2. the difference between the MC of face layers and the MC of core lay is big. It will cause the dimension stability problem. What is the specific consideraton? 

3. the content of the adhesive is quite high. it will cost a lot and result a higher emission of free formaldehyde. 

4. the physical and mechanical properties are proportional to the density. it is not clear that the board with 550 kg/m3 has much higher strength than that of the board with 650kg/m3.

5. the big issue is to deal with the sugar when using sugar beet pulp  to manufacture the composite.