Durability Evaluation of New Composite Materials for the Construction of Beehives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present study investigated the use of agro-industrial wastes like plantain fiber, goose feather fiber, and fique fiber to build honey bee hives. I like the concept and believe this research is timely as sustainability is a pertinent challenge of the present time. However, I notice that the study has been conducted on a very preliminary level and requires researchers to continue to address many related issues in the near future. Please find my observation below:

1. Table 1: Which one serves the positive control? In the study design, there should be a standard/control (one can use the conventional material, in this case) to which the researchers wanted to compare their material.

2. I do not find any statistical analysis in the methods (although researchers mentioned p value very briefly in the results, page 6, line 229-230). Otherwise, how to interpret whether the difference is significant or not. I suggest to carry out sufficient statistics (ANOVA, and post hoc may be an option), and interpret accordingly.

3. Researchers mentioned the five xylophagous fungi of Fusarium. Please write briefly about how these were identified. If it is by comparing microscopic photographs with museum specimens/standard manuals/inventory, please mention it. I suggest that molecular study could be a convenient way to identify.  

4. What is plastic wood? please write briefly.

5. Please write 'Figure 1' instead 'Graph 1'. I suggest to write the Axis titles in English and I do not understand 'Hongo 1", 'Hongo 2'. etc. Are they the five species of Fusarium. 

6. As HDPEv has been used as the base material for the hives (and then the organic materials were used either 10 or 15%), did you notice the acceptance of the honey bees towards hives (made up of polyethylene) made in such a way? In my opinion, the acceptance issue is important to be addressed or discussed properly. 

  Minor comments:

7. In the introduction, please mention if there is any such research was conducted previously or not. 

8. Page 4 line 192: 'For each material, 16 replicas were obtained, 3 for each isolated xylophagous fungus'. Five fungi, therefore 3 x5 =15, and 1 is for? Please write it clearly.

9. In the case of instruments used in the study, please write model no., make, and city.

10. Page 9 line 311-313: How all the materials can be recommended, Figure 1 showed the D (15% goose feather fiber) lot the highest weight loss among the tested materials (although statistical tests were not conducted thoroughly). 

Author Response

Answers to Suggestions and Comments for Authors

Reviewer Number 1

The present study investigated the use of agro-industrial wastes like plantain fiber, goose feather fiber, and fique fiber to build honey bee hives. I like the concept and believe this research is timely as sustainability is a pertinent challenge of the present time. However, I notice that the study has been conducted on a very preliminary level and requires researchers to continue to address many related issues in the near future. Please find my observation below:

1. Table 1: Which one serves the positive control? In the study design, there should be a standard/control (one can use the conventional material, in this case) to which the researchers wanted to compare their material.

Answer:

Table 1 was changed, indicating the control material. Additionally, the words “plastic wood” was changed by “recycled plastic”, to avoid confusion.

Nomenclature	Tipo de material
A	10% Plantain Fiber Reinforced HDPE
B	15% Plantain Fiber Reinforced HDPE
C	10% Goose Down Fiber Reinforced HDPE
D	15% Goose Down Fiber Reinforced HDPE
E	10% Fique Fiber reinforced HDPE
F	15% Fique Fiber reinforced HDPE
G	Pinewood (Control Material)
H	Recycled plastic

 

2. I do not find any statistical analysis in the methods (although researchers mentioned pvalue very briefly in the results, page 6, line 229-230). Otherwise, how to interpret whether the difference is significant or not. I suggest to carry out sufficient statistics (ANOVA, and post hoc may be an option), and interpret accordingly.

Answer:

The statistical analysis allows to identify the significant difference between the fungi species and the materials. There was no difference between the fungi species, which means that fungi species behave the same in the material degradation. However, there was a significant different between the materials. This information was added to the manuscript.

3. Researchers mentioned the five xylophagous fungi of Fusarium. Please write briefly about how these were identified. If it is by comparing microscopic photographs with museum specimens/standard manuals/inventory, please mention it. I suggest that molecular study could be a convenient way to identify.  

Answer:

Fungi samples were collected from beehives in the municipalities of Paipa, Duitama and Pachavita. This samples were introduced in a humid chamber in order to stimulate the fungi growth. After two weeks, fungi species were isolated in petri dishes. The isolation procedure was repeated several times to obtain pure fungi species in 16 petri dishes according to the experimental design. During the complete procedure, polluted samples were eliminated. Once the fungi species were isolated, they were identified by comparison. All the fungi species belong to the genus Fusarium sp.

 

4. What is plastic wood? please write briefly.

Answer:

Plastic Wood is considered as a material made from recycled polymeric materials with similar characteristics as the natural Wood. However, to avoid any confusión, we changed the word “plastic wood” to “recycled wood”.

 

5. Please write 'Figure 1' instead 'Graph 1'. I suggest to write the Axis titles in English and I do not understand 'Hongo 1", 'Hongo 2'. etc. Are they the five species of Fusarium. 

Answer:

The names were adjusted in the graph. We decided to focus on the difference between materials, because there was no significant difference between the fungi species, according to the statistical analysis. Therefore, the graph shows the % of weight loss for the materials,

 

6. As HDPEv has been used as the base material for the hives (and then the organic materials were used either 10 or 15%), did you notice the acceptance of the honey bees towards hives (made up of polyethylene) made in such a way? In my opinion, the acceptance issue is important to be addressed or discussed properly. 

Answer:

In the article, we do not mention the acceptance test of the materials by the bees. However, we have made some preliminary tests in the field, and we have observed a normal acceptance by the bees. We plan to publish this information in a next manuscript after a more structured experimental design.

  Minor comments:

7. In the introduction, please mention if there is any such research was conducted previously or not. 

Answer:

We found previous research results about accelerated degradation of materials, especially wood and plastics. But there is a lack of publications that combine the wood degradation and the beehives wood.

 

8. Page 4 line 192: 'For each material, 16 replicas were obtained, 3 for each isolated xylophagous fungus'. Five fungi, therefore 3 x5 =15, and 1 is for? Please write it clearly.

Answer:

The information was corrected.

9. In the case of instruments used in the study, please write model no., make, and city.

Answer:

The following information was included in the article:

Incubator / brand: MEMMERT. model: IN 55 SINGLE DISPLAY. Laboratories from the Saint Thomas Aquinas University in Tunja, Colombia.

Laminar Flow Cabinet / brand: TopAir Systems. model: HC-H120P. Laboratories from the Saint Thomas Aquinas University in Tunja, Colombia.

Autoclave / marca: ADVANCE. Capacity: 18 liters.  Laboratories from the Saint Thomas Aquinas University in Tunja, Colombia.

10. Page 9 line 311-313: How all the materials can be recommended, Figure 1 showed the D (15% goose feather fiber) lot the highest weight loss among the tested materials (although statistical tests were not conducted thoroughly). 

Answer:

The manuscript was corrected, specifying that the material “10% Plantain Fiber Reinforced HDPE”, and the “recycled plastic” show the best results in the biodegradation test. The materials with the lower resistance were the pinewood, and the “15% Goose Down Fiber Reinforced HDPE”

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper Manuscript ID sustainability-1930394 titled "Durability Evaluation of New Composite Materials for the Construction of Beehives" is recommended for minor revision.

STRENGTHS:

The paper shows good understanding of the experimental work.

The paper has good flow and organisation.

The paper has good structure and arrangement.

 

Weaknesses:

The paper requires some proof reading and minor English language editing.

The references should be improved with more high impact papers from related studies and also add papers from Suatainability, or related MDPI journals too to increase its visibility, citeability and impact.

I suggest adding more results to the study- only one graph is not sufficient to discuss the findings.

In Table 2, replace Fuente with Source in "Fuente: ASTM D 2017.[24] ".

IN Figure 1, replace Graph 1 with Figure 2, and also use English words for Tipo de material, Hongo 1 Hongo 2 Hongo 3 Hongo 4 Hongo 5, % Pérdida de Peso....

Also, replace  Graph 1 with Figure 2,  replace FIgure 2 with Figure 3, and so on...

In Figure 2 which should be "Figure 3. Growth of xylophagous fungi in the test tubes of the composite materials", add more details for the six slides a,b,c,d,e,f. Update the caption so readers can understand it better and identify them.

Add the standard ASTM D 2017 in the references. Or is it Ref [24], then add is wherever it is cited in the paper.

Also, in the references, I noticed the reference stated is withdrawn, then what is the newer one aside "[23] “Standard Test Method of Accelerated Laboratory Test of Natural Decay Resistance of Woods (Withdrawn 2014).” 405 https://www.astm.org/standards/d2017 (accessed Jun. 28, 2022)." Then update it and add ASTM D-2017: 2005. 

Since the study is based on a withdrawn standard from 2005, the authors should add a new section as Section 5- Policy Implications, while Section 6 will be conclusions. IN the new Section 5, add the new recommendations for the elaboration of another standard that will replace the existing ASTM D2017-05 Standard Test Method of Accelerated Laboratory Test of Natural Decay Resistance of Woods (Withdrawn 2014). 

In technical academic writing, the use of pronouns like "we" is not acceptable. Such as in Discussion Section, "We recommend ..." in Page 8 line 297. Also in the Conclusion section, "we have..." in Page 9 line 310 and "we propose..." in Page 9 line 339.

Is Equation (1) being original or from other authored papers, then reference it well.

 Conclusion should also highlight main findings of the study and state the limitations.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Answers to Suggestions and Comments for Authors

Reviewer Number 2

1. The paper requires some proof reading and minor English language editing.

Answer:

In table 2, the word “fuente”, meaning “source”, was corrected. Also, other spanish words were corrected.

 

1. The references should be improved with more high impact papers from related studies and also add papers from Sustainability, or related MDPI journals too to increase its visibility, citeability and impact.

 

Answer:

Following the suggestions of the reviewer, we found the following interesting papers which help to structure the introduction and other parts of our manuscript.

Amazing Fungi for Eco-Friendly Composite Materials: A Comprehensive Review. Aiduang W, Chanthaluck A, […] Suwannarach N. Journal of Fungi 2022, Vol. 8, Page 842 (2022) 8(8) 842

Changes in Chemical Composition, Crystallizability, and Microstructure of Decayed Wood-Fiber-Mat-Reinforced Composite Treated with Copper Triazole Preservative. Bao M, Tang R, […] Li N. Forests 2022, Vol. 13, Page 1387 (2022) 13(9) 1387

Fungi in Mycelium-Based Composites: Usage and Recommendations. Sydor M, Cofta G, […] Bonenberg A. Materials 2022, Vol. 15, Page 6283 (2022) 15(18) 6283

Impact of Cellulolytic Fungi on Biodegradation of Hemp Shives and Corn Starch-Based Composites with Different Flame-Retardants. Vasiliauskienė D, Boris R, […] Urbonavičius J. Microorganisms 2022, Vol. 10, Page 1830 (2022) 10(9) 1830

Comparison of Methods to Identify and Monitor Mold Damages in Buildings. Martin-Sanchez P, Nunez M, […] Kauserud H. Applied Sciences 2022, Vol. 12, Page 9372 (2022) 12(18) 9372

Honey and Other Beekeeping Products Intake among the Romanian Population and Their Therapeutic Use. Ioniță-Mîndrican C, Mititelu M, […] Ghica M. Applied Sciences 2022, Vol. 12, Page 9649 (2022) 12(19) 9649

 

1. I suggest adding more results to the study- only one graph is not sufficient to discuss the findings.

Answer:

A table 3 was added to the manuscript in order to have more evidences for the discussion.

 

1. In Table 2, replace Fuente with Source in "Fuente: ASTM D 2017.[24] ".

Answer:

The information was corrected.

1. IN Figure 1, replace Graph 1 with Figure 2, and also use English words for Tipo de material, Hongo 1 Hongo 2 Hongo 3 Hongo 4 Hongo 5, % Pérdida de Peso...

Answer:

The figure was corrected, including the description.

1. Also, replace  Graph 1 with Figure 2,  replace FIgure 2 with Figure 3, and so on...

Answer:

The information was corrected.

1. In Figure 2 which should be "Figure 3. Growth of xylophagous fungi in the test tubes of the composite materials", add more details for the six slides a,b,c,d,e,f. Update the caption so readers can understand it better and identify them.

Answer:

The information was corrected.

1. Add the standard ASTM D 2017 in the references. Or is it Ref [24], then add is wherever it is cited in the paper.

Answer:

The information was corrected.

1. Also, in the references, I noticed the reference stated is withdrawn, then what is the newer one aside "[23] “Standard Test Method of Accelerated Laboratory Test of Natural Decay Resistance of Woods (Withdrawn 2014).” 405 https://www.astm.org/standards/d2017 (accessed Jun. 28, 2022)." Then update it and add ASTM D-2017: 2005. 

Answer:

The information was corrected.

1. Since the study is based on a withdrawn standard from 2005, the authors should add a new section as Section 5- Policy Implications, while Section 6 will be conclusions. IN the new Section 5, add the new recommendations for the elaboration of another standard that will replace the existing ASTM D2017-05 Standard Test Method of Accelerated Laboratory Test of Natural Decay Resistance of Woods (Withdrawn 2014). 

Answer:

A new section with the policy implications was added to the discussion. Basically, the results might be useful in the next policy version about the methodology for the biodegradation of materials.

1. In technical academic writing, the use of pronouns like "we" is not acceptable. Such as in Discussion Section, "We recommend ..." in Page 8 line 297. Also in the Conclusion section, "we have..." in Page 9 line 310 and "we propose..." in Page 9 line 339.

Answer:

The information was corrected

1. Is Equation (1) being original or from other authored papers, then reference it well.

Answer:

The equation represents a percentage, therefore we wrote the equation, and there is no need of a reference.

1. Conclusion should also highlight main findings of the study and state the limitations.

Answer:

The conclusion was corrected with the suggested information.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved. But it requires some more improvement.

1. Please add the statistics part to the methodology 

2. Table 1 legend should be in English. Also please mention the unit of weight.

3. The number in Table 1, ',' should be replaced '.' Like 2,87 ± 0,084 should be 2.87 ± 0.084. 

4. Page 7 Line 234: Result- Please delete the word 'Next'.

5. Figure 2: ',' should be replaced '.'

Author Response

Respuestas a Sugerencias y Comentarios para Autores

Revisor número 1

Comentarios y sugerencias para los autores

El manuscrito ha sido mejorado. Pero requiere alguna mejora más.

 

1. Por favor agregue la parte de estadísticas a la metodología

Responder:

La información fue corregida.

2. La leyenda de la tabla 1 debe estar en inglés. También mencione la unidad de peso.

Responder:

La información fue corregida.

3. El número en la Tabla 1, ',' debe ser reemplazado por '.' Como 2,87 ± 0,084 debería ser 2,87 ± 0,084.

Responder:

La información fue corregida.

4. Página 7 Línea 234: Resultado: elimine la palabra 'Siguiente'.

Responder:

La información fue corregida.

5. Figura 2: ',' debe ser reemplazado por '.'

Responder:

La información fue corregida.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx