Hot Compression of Calcium Chloride and Sodium Carbonate Modifies Wood for Tsoongiodendron odorum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

   

Comment_R2 

The authors improved the manuscript but it is not ready again for the publishing. 

In the several pages the text is not correctly edited, different type of font was used, blue color used, equations not visible, etc…. 

 

Table 6. Hardness measurement results. Were used only nine wood samples for this test? In my opinion, this sample number is not exaustive

 

Table 7 not clear 

Table 9 not clear 

Figure 7 not clear 

 

Conclusion are discussion or additional result sentences. Not valid as conclusion paragraph

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before thinking of publication. You should leave space between the value and celsius symbol. I would add more key words such as hardness, mechanical strength, compression, treatment etc. All the scientific names in the whole text should be presented in italics. For meters and centimeters, keep only the short name. In line 34, what do you mean by "showing a promising development prospect"? in which direction? There are redundant spaces. Pay attention to the numbers that should have been superscripts. In line 35, you have referred that this species is "suitable for applications in construction", but this does not agree to the following that you refer: the low density, "grade 2 light density". In line 38, the word "grade" is referred twice. In introduction chapter, you should refer to the amounts of wood produced from this species, in order to highlight the significance and practical meaning of this work and its results. In line 55, probably something is missing in "Lv[7]"? In line 58, "Liu[8] Liu" needs improvement. The term "hemicellulose" would rather be used in plural form. In line 84, what do you mean by "tourist"? After the first time explained you could use the short name of EMC. In line 140, add the word "strength". Since you publish in international journal, it would not be appropriate to use chinese standards, since it would be more difficult to the readers to repeat the experimental work. Furthermore, some of the referred standards applied in this work are in the status withdrawn or obsolete. For the same phenomenon you use both the terms "Spring-back" and "rebound". Provide more information on the SPSS use and one or two images of the densification /compression process and the respective specimens. In an attempt to interprete the results and discuss them, you should incorporate a description of wood chemical components (the components of cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, extractives) responses to heat and please, add the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2021.2026 to support this statement. Add as well the DOI numbers / URLs in the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English language is quite good, though mainly some type errors have been detected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved; congratulations.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English language has been significantly improved.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the research work as well as the manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. Of course, there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication.

I think there is the need of a space in the title, before impregnation. In line 12, the "woody properties" needs improvement, as well as the "Impregnation compression" in line 17. In line 13, probably the "by" should be replaced by "after"? (check again the meaning). Leave a space between the value and the unit, for example celsius unit or cm etc. (in the whole text). You could make a brief addition in the end of abstract referring also to some other factors of the "optimal treatment process" like the wood moisture content etc. and the respective improvement level achieved. In key words, you rather choose plain words and not phrases, to make the manuscript easy to be detected by readership. Try to incorporate as well the common name of the species Tsoongiodendron odorum. In line 26, explain the "DBH". In line 42-43, the use of "interpretation" is not very clear. In introduction, you did not explain why this species would need special treatment, what is the quality and most significant drawbacks of this species wood. Please incorporate as well the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2021.2026 to explain which are the basic and most significant changes that take place in wood components during the heating/temperature rise. In 46-53 lines, please refer also to the improvement level of the wood properties after the performance of the proposed method (pre-treatment, with subsequent mechanical densification with and without imprognation), in order to provide an integrated state-of-the-art description. Why is the chosen to be studied species significant to be searched (which is the availability in your country or worldwide, please add these info in the theoretical part to strengthen it)? In 59-60 lines, please check again if the phrase "in situ" is suitable in the sentence. In 62-63, add as well the improvement of wood properties, wood duration before the waste of resources. In line 69, keep "cm" once. In case of wood, the word "plates" should be replaced to "boards". In line 77, why did you apply immersion for calcium chloride, while in the second step you applied vacuum pressure? Dwell time is different from holding time? For the equipment used you should provide manufacturer and country as well. The footnote of table 1 is not clear. In line 85, in table 2, it is the first time of using the "orthogonal test" term, though without providing any explanation in the text previously. Why did you base on chinese standards (for example GB/T1936.1-2009) since you intended to publish in international journal? It is quite difficult for the readers to repeat the researchprocess and thoroughly comprehend your results. Please, provide configurations of orthogonal test design, mechanical compression/densification process and untreated/treated specimens. In line 107, except for the reference, please provide as well some of the most significant points of the process. The methodology generally should be described in detail. In line 108, you refer "No.7" and as far as I saw, there was no explanation previously for such coding process. Did you apply SEM as well in specimens after their breakage? Did you apply any statistical analysis on the results?since there is not such description in materials and methods chapter. In figures captions, the word "comparison" is not suitable. Add in graphs the standard deviation of the values. In line 309, the "'s" in "wood's interior" should be removed. In 346 line, the "Michelian odora" is not clear. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language use is satisfying and the text comprahensible, though there are only some points that need to be clarified mainly through rephrase or providing missing information.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

The authors of this paper investigated the physical properties of the wood by combining in-situ calcium carbonate formation and thermal compression. This study remains an important research topic and I appreciate the work of the authors. The research is reasonably interesting, although it has to be included in the category of “case study”, more correctly.

Title: It is not correctly clear and brief. I suggest to rephrase it to better summarize the approach and results of the manuscript.

Keyword:

Words from the title should not be used as keywords.

 

Abstract:

The abstract requires a revision to improve the comprehension of the work. Some sentences need rephrasing for better clarity. The authors described only the methodology and excessive results aspect. Declare the aims and declare the most significant methods applied. I suggest to highlight the most important results and, briefly, presenting the main conclusions.

 

Introduction

The Introduction should provide a short state of art of what is being discussed in this paper. Need rephrasing to show the milestones of the paper

This section is not correctly developed.

 

Material and method have been NOT correctly organized to describe the study and the field tests.

Is there a statistical approach?

 

Result, Discussion

It is well written but it could be improved by a more focused approach to the problem, the addition of relevant references for the last part, and a better formulation of the findings. Some parts need your careful revision to clarify, extend and check some inconsistencies.

 

Discussion do not clearly describe the potential future work, if any.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion is not correct for this type of journal. The conclusions should be written comparing the objects of the study and the results obtained. The conclusions repeat the results, are not well focused on your findings and know is possible to develop this research. The conclusion is quite short basically including the results. More future developments and conclusions should be considered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with the modificatin of wood, using in situ calcium carbonate impregnation combined with compression.

General remarks:

The introduction of the manuscript is wide enough, where important references are presented

The material and methods should be improved (see remarks bellow).

The section results and discussion is well organized, however some specific drawbacks should be eliminated (see bellow). There is one general remark for this section, namely there is no or very few comparisons with referencesin this section! Please improve is and compare the findings with results of other studies!

Conclusions are not fully supported by the findings.

Specific remarks:

L73 The presentation of used equipment in the table is not acceptable. Please include the used equipment into the text, where you are describing specific procedures.

L74 Please use the sentence as a subtitle.

L104 This methodology shoul be rewritten. I guess, the springback ratio was measured, or not? Please put the formula, as well!

L114 Did you measure EDAX? Please describe the procedure.

L128 Table 4

Is there neccesary to use term "Immersion" in the caption of the table? Please explain the meaing of x1, x2, x3 and R in the caption of the table as well!

Wording - Please correct the term Growth rate! This term is used for xylogenesis, not for relative changes? Is this relative weight gain in percentages? Please use the same term in text and in table!

L134 "..., with a significant increase in density observed in the upper and lower sections." The term upper and lower section shoulb be change into outer or surface section, layer,...!

L139 "Second, the impregnation of material after rapid compression mainly affects the surface part where the force is larger, leading to a more pronounced increase in density." Please correct the sentence! The force or stress should be equal in the whole cross section, isn't is so? I guess you had in mind the compressibility / plastic deformability of wood structure, due to maybe temperature or moisture gradient during pressing? Is there some more chemical changes in the surface layer of the sample as well??

L146 "Analysis of Rebound Rate"

There is no such a term as "rebound rate", even in the reference 17, which you are using. Please correct the term! I guess you had in mind the determination of springback effect by delayed / time (moisture) depending swelling? Please check the whole document!

L165 Please delete the title from the graph and use caption to its explanation. It is not understandable, what you've meant with "homeopathic"? The y-axis title is missing!

L166 Please use the standard term "Pressing time" or "Close time" instead of "Dwell time". Please explain x1, x2, x3 and R. It is not understandable, what is meant with "homeopathic rebound"? The variation of the values (coef. of variation, std. deviation,...) is missing!

L169 "Compared with the middle cell wall, the surface cell wall undergoes significant deformation and the volume of the cell cavity becomes smaller after rapid compression (Figure 3a)."

There are no such term like surface cell wall? I gues you had in mind inner and surface layers of your sample. Please correct this through all the document.

It would be nice to have a macro image of samples, which were compressed and impregnated in various trials, with the positions of middle and surface layers, which are studied with SEM! Please give additional image, with all tested trials in orthogonal scheme! Then continue with SEM analysis of particular samples.

L184 "Energy Spectrum Analysis"

Did you use EDX analysis in SEM? If you did, please use this terminology and give the explanation in material and methods, how you did this!

L188 "...carbonate of lime..."??? Please use the same term "calcium carbonate" through whole document!

L218, 219 Use the first capital letters in for variables in tables 6, 7. The variation of the values is missing (std. deviation, coef. of variation,...)

L229 Please don't use the title in the graph. Better use explanation of the graph in caption. Give the y-axis name and units of the variable. Please add the variation of the value (standard variation, min-max, coef. of variation). It looks, the figure 6 is actually reduntant, and gives no additional information comparing to table 7?!?

L249 "When the compression ratio is 10%, the bending strength and bending modulus of the impregnated compressed material are generally higher."

Please give statistical confirmation of this statement! What kind of test (t-test, Anova,...) and probability was used?

L251, 252 Tables 8,9

Use first capital letter for variables in the tables! Please add variation of values (std. deviation, coef. of variation,...).

L264 Please use "Modulus of elasticity" in flexural test instead of "Flexural modulus". Use first capital letters!

L330 Conclusions

Please correct some not proper use "new" terms in this section:

"intermediate cells", "rebound rate", "bounce rate", "Michelian odora".

Please add the general conclusion sentence in this section! Please add also the information, what should be done or is planned to be done in future, based on the findings from this study!