Study on the Process Optimization of Peanut Coat Pigment Staining of Poplar Wood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the use of peanut pigments to stain wood is innovative, the research or the paper presented has some serious shortcomings. The peanut pigment is obviously the centrepiece of the research, but the paper does not describe where and how the peanut pigment was obtained, or how the peanut pigment solution was prepared. The paper presents various effects of wood stains, but the staining processes used were always carried out in combination with fixative/mordant solutions. For this reason, it is not known whether the wood colouring achieved is due to the effect of the fixing agents used exclusively, as colouring with peanut pigment alone is not discussed at all, or whether the procedures and results are inadequately explained.

The two terms »dye« and »mordant« are not very common in wood colouring processes. Different stains are usually used to colour wood. These stains can be made from different soluble colourants (dye materials) or contain different insoluble pigments. If the pigments are used in the solution, one cannot speak of dye or dyeing but of stain and staining process. Authors need to consider when the terms dye and stain are more appropriate.

The use of the term “Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method" in the title also seems somewhat redundant, especially since this analysis is not properly addressed/explained as a core method in the paper.

The use of units in the paper does not comply with the ISO standard. Example: 50 ℃, 0.8 %, and 2 h and not 50℃, 0.8% and 2h.

In the title and in the research, the “wood used is "poplar", but aspen appears in the keywords. Why is that?

In many cases, capital letters appear after “et al.”.

“Colour” and not “colour" should be used.

References or the authors are listed in the text once with capital letters and the second time with lower and upper case letters. Use a single, consistent and correct spelling of references both in the text and in the References chapter.

Pinus massoniana -> Italics for Latin names.

Line 94 – unnecessary new paragraph

99-107: Revision needed, strange language and content, parameters l, a, b and deltaE as per CIELAB system have * (L*, a*, b* …) and also italics could be used for all symbols.

Some inappropriate uses of the upper text are present, such as: 0.386g/cm3.

Example of the spelling of the dimensions 40 mm × 40 mm × 2 mm and not 40mm×40mm×2 mm.

Chapter 2.1 Materials and equipment: The entire paragraph needs to be expanded and a more precise description of what is what is needed. The reference to the table is missing and the table does not have an appropriate heading.

Similar Chapter 2.2, also figure 2 is a bit confusing: 1 time mordant, 2 times dye. Where the pigment is used is not clear …

The methods are written as "what to do" and not as a description in the past tense. Direct copy of standards or other methods? Correct it.

Line 182 and elsewhere, the inappropriate writing style of units: 3mm*3mm*1mm

Chapters 197-199: Revision required.

Title of paragraph 2.10: text formatting needed.

What is Homomory dyeing (Table 4) and The same dye method (line 117)?

What is Blue alum and what is Blue vitriol? Explain the terms and use them throughout the paper!

Lines 215-224: The conclusions could be better interpreted. The conclusions drawn from the results are illogically justified. It is not explained why a particular conclusion is supported by a named reference.

The entire Chapter 3.2 deals with mordanting efficiency, measured as colour difference before and after washing, in combination with mordanting time, concentration and temperature. It is not clear which mordant this analysis refers to, as three of them were used. Furthermore, the mordants were not used as a single dyeing process, but always in combination with peanut stain, which makes this analysis questionable. Furthermore, all the titles of the figures in this section are confused and mixed up.

The conclusions in sections 3.3 and 3.4 require additional explanation. The whole analysis is a bit confusing. There are even new formulae that are not explained. The cross-references to the tables are also sometimes incorrect.

Really: “Figure 5. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.”???

The SEM analysis in this chapter is superfluous or inadequate. The compared images have been taken on a different wooden structure, which does not offer the best comparability. It is also not possible to conclude from the images whether there are really pigments or the remains of a broken cell wall. Furthermore, it is not possible to speak of differences in surface morphology, as all surfaces are equally rough or the cell walls are broken/cracked in a similar way.

 

…

Comments on the Quality of English Language

All comments are already included in the comments for the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors presented most of the suggestions that were made. The article is better and can be published.