Physico-Mechanical and Energy Properties of Pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Beech (Fagus sylvatica) Wood from Railroad Ties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer #: forests-2895053-peer-review-v1

Full Title: Physico-mechanical and energy properties of wood from railroad ties

Article Type: Original Research

 

Dear Editor,

Minor Revision

The paper's arguments generally hold validity in terms of the data presented, but there are missed opportunities to fortify these arguments through comprehensive data presentation, explicit reference to standards, and elucidation of practical implications, particularly environmental ones. Adding visual data representations and providing a clearer statistical analysis would greatly enhance the credibility and impact of the study's findings.

1. The arguments provided indicate that creosote impregnation affects various properties of the wood, which is backed by the data. This demonstrates a strong correlation between the treatment and changes in wood characteristics, lending credibility to these claims. However, the strength of this argument is contingent upon the reliability and accuracy of testing procedures.

2. The feedback points out that the summary lacks visual summaries of results, which would indeed enhance the communication of the data. Visual aids are vital in making complex data more accessible and should be included to improve the overall argumentative strength of the paper. For example, a bar graph comparing the density of non-treated and treated wood samples would instantly convey the effects of creosote impregnation.

3. Asserting that the analyzed samples meet standard requirements without referencing specific standards does make the argument less authoritative. Moreover, the discussion on practical implications and environmental considerations is an essential part of creating a compelling argument by connecting research findings to real-world applications and concerns. The paper should reference standards, such as those by ASTM or ISO, to substantiate claims about the wood meeting construction requirements.

4. Failing to suggest future research directions is a noteworthy omission. Presenting such recommendations would underscore the original study's significance and the continuity of inquiry to address remaining questions, subsequently bolstering the argument. Discussing how the creosote impregnation might affect the long-term reusability of wood for construction or as biomass for energy would link the paper's findings with significant applied aspects.

5. The feedback correctly highlights the lack of statistical validation for some findings as a weakness. The absence of reported p-values or significance tests for some of the comparative data reduces the power of the conclusions. Thus, substantive statistical analysis should be integral to support any claims about property differences. A table of ANOVA results showcasing F values and p-values would validate the significance of the differences observed in mechanical properties post-treatment.

6. The paper could potentially downplay the negative environmental impacts of creosote, a chemical preservative, which must be acknowledged and addressed to make a balanced argument.

 

 

Author Response

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY REVIEWER #1

Reviewer #1: The paper's arguments generally hold validity in terms of the data presented, but there are missed opportunities to fortify these arguments through comprehensive data presentation, explicit reference to standards, and elucidation of practical implications, particularly environmental ones. Adding visual data representations and providing a clearer statistical analysis would greatly enhance the credibility and impact of the study's findings.

Response: Thank you for reading the text. Below are responses to detailed comments.

 

COMMENT 1: The arguments provided indicate that creosote impregnation affects various properties of the wood, which is backed by the data. This demonstrates a strong correlation between the treatment and changes in wood characteristics, lending credibility to these claims. However, the strength of this argument is contingent upon the reliability and accuracy of testing procedures.

Response: The tests were carried out in accordance with available standards and research procedures described in standards and other scientific publications. The accuracy of the measurements was provided by the authors in the methodology section (accuracy of linear measurements, force measurement, accuracy of measuring equipment, etc.). According to the authors of the publication, the description of the research methods used allows the research to be repeated by other scientists.

If the reviewer has doubts about the number of repetitions and the reliability of the results, the authors may provide files with the source data.

 

COMMENT 2: The feedback points out that the summary lacks visual summaries of results, which would indeed enhance the communication of the data. Visual aids are vital in making complex data more accessible and should be included to improve the overall argumentative strength of the paper. For example, a bar graph comparing the density of non-treated and treated wood samples would instantly convey the effects of creosote impregnation.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that charts could have been used to graphically visualize some of the numerical data.

In the article, the authors use tables that contain more detailed information about the results than could be presented graphically in charts. At the stage of preparing the first version of the publication, the authors had prepared a graphical presentation of the data, but at a later stage it was decided to replace them with tables. In accordance with the principles of scientific publications, information is not duplicated when tables and charts are used simultaneously.

 

COMMENT 3: Asserting that the analyzed samples meet standard requirements without referencing specific standards does make the argument less authoritative. Moreover, the discussion on practical implications and environmental considerations is an essential part of creating a compelling argument by connecting research findings to real-world applications and concerns. The paper should reference standards, such as those by ASTM or ISO, to substantiate claims about the wood meeting construction requirements.

Response: In the publication, the test results were referenced and compared to the EN 338 standard (e.g. lines 519-539, 546-554). The authors did not refer to the EN 1912:2012 standard because they did not use a visual assessment of strength classes. The authors cannot refer to ISO/ASTM standards because they do not have access to them.

In the discussion of the results, the authors also refer to legal acts regulating environmental aspects and the possibilities of using railway sleepers.

 

COMMENT 4: Failing to suggest future research directions is a noteworthy omission. Presenting such recommendations would underscore the original study's significance and the continuity of inquiry to address remaining questions, subsequently bolstering the argument. Discussing how the creosote impregnation might affect the long-term reusability of wood for construction or as biomass for energy would link the paper's findings with significant applied aspects.

Response: In the Discussion section, the content was supplemented with a sentence clearly indicating the proposed future research direction. A future direction of research on railroad ties is proposed, which concerns finding an effective way to extract poisonous oil from the wood of used railroad ties. Such considerations will be published in the next article on this topic, prepared by an international team of authors, including scientists dealing with chemistry and the issue of the impact of harmful substances on the environment.

 

COMMENT 5: The feedback correctly highlights the lack of statistical validation for some findings as a weakness. The absence of reported p-values or significance tests for some of the comparative data reduces the power of the conclusions. Thus, substantive statistical analysis should be integral to support any claims about property differences. A table of ANOVA results showcasing F values and p-values would validate the significance of the differences observed in mechanical properties post-treatment.

Response: The authors used statistical tests to indicate the significance of differences in mean values, the results of which are presented in tables 5, 8, 11. The described statistically significant differences between the means for individual physical and mechanical parameters are also provided in the content of the publication. The authors did not include a table with the results of the ANOVA analysis for energy values, considering it unnecessary, but they included p values indicating significant differences in means in the content.

 

COMMENT 6: The paper could potentially downplay the negative environmental impacts of creosote, a chemical preservative, which must be acknowledged and addressed to make a balanced argument.

Response: The article presents an analysis of the results of testing the physical, mechanical and energetic properties of wooden railroad ties. The literature review and the last paragraph of the conclusions clearly indicate that the use of such primers is currently prohibited. However, if there were ways to separate the creosote oil from the wood, the remaining material could be used. The authors' intention in this publication was not to analyze the negative impact of creosote oil on the natural environment, but only to determine the physical, mechanical and energetic properties of wood from railroad ties.

As mentioned in response to an earlier comment, the impact of oil on the environment will be considered in the next scientific publication currently being prepared.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank You Authors for this research!

Good luck for the next researches!

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY REVIEWER #2

Reviewer #2: Thank You Authors for this research! Good luck for the next researches!

The comments have been posted in a pdf file. Authors respond in the order in which they are included in the manuscript file. Line numbers consistent with the original manuscript file.

 

COMMENT 1, line 2: Would be good to show: ...pine and beech...

Response: As suggested, the authors added the wood species used in the research to the title

 

COMMENT 2, Line 27: Could You mention which ones?; Line 29: Would be good to show the exact values; Line 33: The same here. Please show exact values..

Response: Added information about class numbers „…(compressive and bending strength class: C50 – pine, D70 – beech).” Bending and compressive stress values have been added

 

COMMENT 3, Line 36: In our country we already have such tradition. Anyway it is a big question? Creosote as chemical and its influence to the live organisms for long periods.

Response: In Poland, wood from railroad ties is not harvested due to the oil content and the lack of safe methods. This is a problem to be solved in the future.

 

COMMENT 4, Line 37: static three point bending

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer's suggestion.

 

COMMENT 5, Line 109: and physico-chemical (if we talk about calorific value).

Response: Added "…and physico-chemical".

 

COMMENT 6, Line 111: static 3 point bending

Response: Added „static three point bending”.

 

COMMENT 7, Figure 1: Please add dimensions if applicable.

Response: Following the reviewer's suggestion, Figure 1 has been corrected. Dimensions have been added.

 

COMMENT 8, Line 150: static three point bending

Response: Added „static three point bending”.

 

COMMENT 9, Line 158: 105+-2 or 103+-2?

Response: Editorial error. Corrected to 103±2°C.

 

COMMENT 10, Line 161: Could You explain, why different number?

Response: The different number of samples resulted from the quality of the wood used for testing. The wood of the railroad ties had many longitudinal cracks, which limited the possibility of producing samples in accordance with the recommendations of the standard.

 

COMMENT 11, Line 158: Please show superscript.

Response: The way of saving units has been improved

 

COMMENT 12, Line 176: Does it mean, that all specimens for mechanical were conditioned at standard atmosphere 65/20? If not, why?

Response: In accordance with the research procedure, mechanical measurements were made at the analytical moisture content of the wood. Then, wood moisture measurements were made.

After performing the measurements, based on the mathematical formula included in the standard, the obtained results of mechanical parameters were converted to 12% humidity.

The wood was not conditioned before measurements.

 

COMMENT 13, Line 277: Could it be rounded? Line 322: To my mind three numbers are enough; Line 379: Could it be rounded to three numbers?

Response: The authors provide values in the content in accordance with the values given in the tables. We believe that this entry is correct. The use of rounding values in the content may be the basis for further comments indicating that the values do not comply with the tables.

 

COMMENT 14, Line 536: This standard shows the characteristic (calculated) values of the tested wood samples. Did You make calculations of Your tests as well to compare in correct way?

Response: The results obtained from wood strength measurements were compared to the results given in the EN338 standard. The paragraph referred to in the comment (original text, line 531-539) contains the measured values and the values from the standard to which the results are compared. The authors have supplemented the markings of individual wood strength classes in accordance with the EN338 standard.

 

COMMENT 15, Line 606: Could You mention exact, then conlussions will not be so general. Some scientists starts to read manuscript from conclussions and it always good to read the "solind content". Thank You!

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, information about the wood strength classes met has been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf