Hybrid Wood Composites with Improved Mechanical Strength and Fire Retardance Due to a Delignification–Mineralization–Densification Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well-written and structured.
The cited references, relatively current and from good journals, show the gaps in related research and the contribution achieved with the development of this work.
The objectives are clear.
The methodology was presented in detail and supported by research and relevant documents in the area. It is reproducible.
The discussion of the results presents a good level and depth. The results are also compared with other surveys.
The conclusions are effectively related to the objectives.
In future research, it would be important to consider the use of statistical tools to compare means between groups.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The article is well-written and structured.
Response: Thanks.
The cited references, relatively current and from good journals, show the gaps in related research and the contribution achieved with the development of this work.
Response: Thanks.
The objectives are clear.
Response: Thanks.
The methodology was presented in detail and supported by research and relevant documents in the area. It is reproducible.
Response: Thanks.
The discussion of the results presents a good level and depth. The results are also compared with other surveys.
Response: Thanks.
The conclusions are effectively related to the objectives.
Response: Thanks.
In future research, it would be important to consider the use of statistical tools to compare means between groups.
Response: Thanks. In future research, we will pay particular attention to the use of statistical tools to compare means between groups.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
you have submitted a well-prepared manuscript, with a wide range of properly selected advanced research methods, and compared your results to up-to-date available publications. The manuscript is well written, with an understandable methodology and results description.
My only remark to correct something concerns graphics quality. In my opinion, it is necessary to significantly improve the weak quality of figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Best regards!
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Dear Authors,
you have submitted a well-prepared manuscript, with a wide range of properly selected advanced research methods, and compared your results to up-to-date available publications. The manuscript is well written, with an understandable methodology and results description.
Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments on the manuscript.
My only remark to correct something concerns graphics quality. In my opinion, it is necessary to significantly improve the weak quality of figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Best regards!
Response: Thanks. The graphics qualities of Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were improved in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Hybrid wood composites with improved mechanical strength and fire retardance by a delignification-mineralization-densification strategy
Author:
Liu et al.
General
This article shows the different properties of wood after thermal and mechanical treatment. The article has practical application value. The test is clearly written but insufficient in some sections.
Specific
L108 – What is the latin name of wood? How many samples were tested?
How many samples did you test with each method?
L157-160 – Describe in more detail the mechanical properties testing!
Figure 1. Does the figure show the same part of wood, or different parts?
Figure 2. What is the scale? Can you show on figure bigger magnification, as in the present magnification nothing relevant can be observed? Which cross section are shown in c,d and e?
Figure 3. The resolution of the figure is very poor. Increase the resolution.
L261-“Meanwhile, the corresponding modulus of CMDW sample..” – which modulus? Of elasticity or shear?
Figure 5. The resolution. What is the difference between the a1, b1 and c1? What different samples? Explain please! Are not the values the averages? What are the vertical lines (variance,…)?
Author Response
Reviewer #3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
This article shows the different properties of wood after thermal and mechanical treatment. The article has practical application value. The test is clearly written but insufficient in some sections.
Response: Thank you very much for your useful comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to your suggestions, and all the revisions are marked in red in the revised manuscript.
L108 – What is the latin name of wood? How many samples were tested?
How many samples did you test with each method?
Response: The latin name of wood is Populus spp.
Ten samples from each group were tested for density; Twenty points from each group were tested for hardness; Six samples from each group were tested for mechanical properties; The CONE test was performed on three samples from each group.
The relevant information was added in the revised manuscript.
L157-160 – Describe in more detail the mechanical properties testing!
Response: The more detailed mechanical properties test was described in the revised manuscript, as follows:
The tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths of wood, DW, MDW, and CMDW were carried out using a universal testing machine (SHIMADZU AGS-X) at ambient conditions (25 °C and 50% RH) with a 10 kN load cell. The size of the sample for the tensile test was 100 mm (longitudinal) × 10 mm (tangential) × 3 mm (radial). The tensile test was carried out in the longitudinal direction of the wood, and the tensile speed was set to 5 mm min−1. The size of the sample for the flexural test was 100 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm, the feed speed of the upper indenter was set to 5 mm min−1, and the span was 6 mm. The size of the sample for the compressive test was 20 mm (longitudinal) × 5 mm (tangential) × 3 mm (radial). The compressive test was conducted in the longitudinal direction of the wood, and the compressive speed was set to 5 mm min−1. Six samples from each group were tested for mechanical properties.
Figure 1. Does the figure show the same part of wood, or different parts?
Response: Figure 1 showed the different parts of the wood.
Figure 2. What is the scale? Can you show on figure bigger magnification, as in the present magnification nothing relevant can be observed? Which cross section are shown in c,d and e?
Response: The scale bar was added in Figure 2. The resolution of Figure 2 was improved, and the figures with bigger magnifications were provided in Supporting Information. The cross-sections of c, d, and e were labelled in Figure 2a.
Figure 3. The resolution of the figure is very poor. Increase the resolution.
Response: The resolution of all the figures was increased in the revised manuscript.
L261-“Meanwhile, the corresponding modulus of CMDW sample..” – which modulus? Of elasticity or shear?
Response: They are the elasticity modulus.
Figure 5. The resolution. What is the difference between the a1, b1 and c1? What different samples? Explain please! Are not the values the averages? What are the vertical lines (variance,…)?
Response: The resolution of all the figures was increased in the revised manuscript. Figures a, b, and c were the elasticity modulus of tensile strength, flexural strength, and compressive strength, respectively.
The different samples include wood, DW (delignified wood), MDW (mineralized delignified wood), and CMDW (compressed mineralized delignified wood), respectively.
The data in Figure 5 are the average values of the tested mechanical strength and elastic modulus of the samples, and we also give the corresponding error lines.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
1. Abstract should have some numerical values.
2. May include a few more latest citations.
3. Mechanical testing can be included, like tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths, as stated in the conclusion but not shown anywhere else in the article. Those data should be included.
4. In compressed mineralized delignified wood (CMDW) shows superior strength in fire retardance, there may be inconsistency in the material, which can be addressed, by multiple specimens.
Moderate English corrections are required.
Author Response
Reviewer #4
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
- Abstract should have some numerical values.
Response: Thanks. According to your suggestion, the Abstract was revised.
- May include a few more latest citations.
Response: A few more latest citations were added in the revised manuscript.
- Mechanical testing can be included, like tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths, as stated in the conclusion but not shown anywhere else in the article. Those data should be included.
Response: The data of tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths were added in the sections of Abstract, Introduction, Result analysis, and Conclusion in the revised manuscript.
- In compressed mineralized delignified wood (CMDW) shows superior strength in fire retardance, there may be inconsistency in the material, which can be addressed, by multiple specimens.
Response: Thanks. The cone calorimetry test of the CMDW sample was repeated three times.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate English corrections are required.
Response: The language of the revised manuscript was carefully checked and polished.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
