Effect of Coupling Treatment on Interfacial Bonding Properties of Wood Veneer/Wood Flour–Polyvinyl Chloride Composites with Sandwich Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here is my assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this research article:

Strengths:

- The study tackles an important issue of enhancing the properties of wood-plastic composites (WPCs) for interior applications without compromising their eco-friendliness.

- A novel composite structure of poplar veneer integrated with wood-PVC composites is proposed to improve aesthetics and mechanics.

- Four different coupling agent treatments are systematically evaluated for their effects on the interface bonding between the veneer and WPC layers. 

- A range of characterization methods are utilized including mechanical testing, microscopy, FTIR, etc. to gain insights into the structure-property relationships.

- The results demonstrate silane treatment gives significantly enhanced interface strength and mechanics over other coupling agents or untreated composites. This is useful knowledge.

 

Weaknesses:

- The introduction could be expanded more to highlight the knowledge gaps being addressed and significance of the proposed approach. please use:

Ziaei Tabari et al. (2011). Effects of nanoclay and coupling agent on the mechanical, morphological, and thermal properties of wood flour/polypropylene composites. Polymer Engineering & Science, 51 (2), 272–277.

- The reasoning behind selecting the specific coupling agents and treatment levels needs more explanation. 

- Statistical analysis is lacking to truly confirm the significance of the improvements observed with silane treatment.

- The proposed mechanisms for property enhancement are somewhat simplistic and lack enough supporting evidence.

- The morphology analysis is quite cursory. More interfacial imaging would give better insights.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Here are some of the key weaknesses related to the English language usage in the research article:

1. Long, convoluted sentences - There are several complex, lengthy sentences that could be broken down into shorter, clearer sentences. Simplifying the sentence structures would improve readability.

2. Redundant phrasing - Phrases like "it can be seen", "it was deduced", "this may be due to" are repeatedly used. Removing redundant wording makes the language more concise.

3. Passive voice - Overuse of passive voice constructions like "was tested", "were prepared", "was purchased" makes some parts unnecessarily wordy. Changing to active voice can add clarity. 

4. Informal word choices - Words like "outperformed", "operated", "occurred" sound colloquial for a research paper. More formal academic wording would be preferable.

5. Vague descriptors - Terms like "highest", "largest", "significant" are used without specifics. Replacing these with quantified data or statistical measures would add precision. 

6. Jargon use - Certain engineering/materials science terms like "interphase", "resinated", "furnish" are used without explanation. Defining discipline-specific jargon can improve understanding. 

7. Inconsistent terminology - The composites are referred to as both "WPC" and "WWPC" interchangeably. Maintaining uniform terms avoids confusion.

8. Typographical errors - There are occasional typos, spelling inconsistencies, and punctuation errors throughout. Thorough proofreading is needed.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work contains an elaborated study regarding to analisis of effect of coupling treatment on interface bonding properties of poplar veneer. The composites were prepared with different coupling agents and interface bonding strength was analyzed. Additionally, wood failure ratio and surface chemical elements analysis were highlighted. However, from a scientific point of view, it is seen that although the study has useful knowledge, it does not meet the scientific research for journal in its current situation. My comments and recommendations are the following:

1.       The abstract should be explained in more comprehensively. For example: “The results revealed that … significantly affected …” . What is significant?

2.       The same for line 21.

3.       State of the art is extremely poor and needs to be expanded.

4.       All abbreviations must be defined in the manuscript. Line 85: MAPP, MAPE, etc.

5.       Line 89: “WPVC is demonstrated …” I sugesst : “WPVC was  demonstrated”.

6.       Line 134: “1) …” ????

7.       Line 360: “ … interfacial properties characterization, …”. I consider that interfacial word is used for human!

8.       In the Abstract section it is mentioned the statistically word – “significant”! In the manuscript I didn’t find any kind of significant tests.

9.       Additionally, including more conclusions for further research would certainly increase the value of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made appropriate revisions and provided a satisfactory response to my comments. Based on this, I believe that there are no obstacles to publishing this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be acceptedin present form!