Development of a Biodegradable Material with Oregano Stick as a Prototype of Substitute for Wooden Agglomerate Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to Authors:

(1)           Page 2, Line 79: This is the first appearance of the word ‘REM’. Please state the full spelling, then, followed by the abbreviation.

(2)           Page 2: Overall the Introduction section is too short. This section lack of in-depth elaboration pertaining to problem statement and previous study related to pallet production using oregano stick as a raw material. State the motivational or reason that drives this research (novelty).

(3)           Page 2, Line 75 and throughout the manuscript: Please recheck the reference numbering.

(4)           Page 3, Line 86: Please provide details of location, where (name of place) the oregano raw material was obtained.

(5)           Page 3, Line 89: The authors stated that the oregano sticks are crushed. Please state the instrument used for this procedure. Mortar and pestle? Grinder? If use grinder/any equipment, please state the model and the company/maker.

(6)           Page 3, Line 97: This is the first appearance of the word ‘AIBN’. Please state the full spelling, then, followed by the abbreviation.

(7)           Page 3, Table 1: Please reconsider to replace the ‘Binding agent (ml)’ to ‘Amount of binding agent (ml)’.

(8)           Page 3, Line 100: If possible, do not start the sentence with numbering. Change to ‘Oregano stick weighing 50 g are sieved at 0.025 mm and placed in a …”

(9)           Page 3, Line 103: May delete the ‘2,2 azobisisobutyronitrile’ and use only its abbreviation. This is the second appearance.

(10)        Page 4, Line 120: Describe the mold dimension ( __ cm x ___ cm?) or (its volume).

(11)        Page 4, Line 134, Results: Please provide photographs of the oregano sticks (prior and after treatment).

(12)        Page 5, Table 2: Write the sample clearly ‘1A, 2A, 3A, etc’, accordingly, as mentioned in Page 3, Line 140 onwards.

(13)        Page 6, Line 190: Recheck ‘…ha ¿s the…’.

(14)        Page 6, Line 193: Recheck ‘grapgh’.

(15)        Page 10, Line 274-275: Restructure or rephrase: ‘The development of new materials from waste is a practice that is becoming more and more common nowadays’.

(16)        Page 10, Line 279: This sentence require reference ‘Bioplastics production is a process that involves creating plastics from biological materials, such as corn starch, cellulose, lignin, and other organic compounds’. Add reference: ‘Renewable biomass feedstocks for production of sustainable biodegradable polymer. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2021, 27:100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100412’.

(17)        Page 11, Conclusions section is too long. Please simplify by providing only the important key-point.

(18)        Page 12, Line 378: Recheck: ‘Patents’ section?

 

<<END>>

Require minor editing.

Author Response

Thanks for your revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The objectives of this paper are development of a substitute prototype of wood material with biodegradable material with oregano stick, and its bind method and mechanical testing. Thus, please revised the manuscript as following suggestions.

(1)    Introduction, the focus on Oregano should be on how to handle it, please compress the description of oregano cultivation.     

(2)    Introduction, a review on wooden agglomerate material (Manufacturing process and methods) should been restate and supplied.

(3)    Introduction, paragraph 2 and 3 should be merged and expressed as how to dispose of oregano

(4)    Line 79, REM, the full meaning.

(5)    Materials and Methods, delete the figure 1.

(6)    2.2 Preparation of treatments，how many duplicate for each treatment.

(7)    Line 135-138，insert into Materials and Methods.

(8)    Discussion, explore the advantages of specific bend processes and methods, without overly describing the benefits and methods of waste disposal.

(9)    Conclusions, the conclusions should be responded to the objectives of this study. The current expression should be more concise and 2 paragraphs is enough.

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks for your revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are several issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement. Generally, you should not leave space between the value and percentage unit (%). Lines 28 and 29 could be combined in a more appropriate way, in order the meaning to be clear and syntactically proper. It is not clear why a substitute prototype of wood material should be searched for, why is desirable to replace it. In line 32, the word "worked" can be improved/replaced with a more appropriate one. In line 33, comma can not be used to separate decimals. In line 37, please clarify the term "resistance", mechanical? which property are you talking about. In line 39, the use of "a" does not seem proper. In line 39, replace "more" with "higher". It is not clear in the abstract what this proposed material would be and where it could be applied. Add more relevant key words (for example, bioplastics, composite..). In line 55, "chemical components" or just "extractives"? It should be highlighted that the generation of this oregano residues (residual stems) concerns only a specific period of the year. In line 63, please add the relavant study of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104913 as a reference to strengthen your statement. In the end of introduction it is not highlighted which could be the application of this biodegradable material, which is the practical meaning and significance of this work. In line 79, "REM" is not explained and "mechanical" is not grammatically correct. It could be stated that the introduction does not describe adequately the state-of-the-art, neither for oregano residues use, nor for polylactic acid use in biomaterials combined with other natural fibres. In line 81, the use of present tense is not proper in "is proposed". In table 1, the "AIBN" is not explained. In the methodology descriptions, use past tense. In 109 line, how do you ensure the homogeneity? In line 119, do you mean "dried"? In line 123, what is "bendign"? You did not provide all the necessary equipment details (model, manufacturer, country etc.) for the equipment used in the experimental work. Provide as well the standards applied for the research processes followed in the experiment (for example for compression, MOR etc.). You did not provide the standard deviation values in the results (tables) except for the average values. In 333 line, the "being" is not correct grammatically. The standard "ISO 105454" is not in the references list and it should be corrected to "ISO 10545-4". In conclusions chapter, you refer general information/knowledge corpus that have not been previously referred in the introduction, though they are referred for the first time in coclusions, without being conclusions drwn from the current work, but literature (352-358 lines etc.). Lines 365-366, syntax error, not clear meaning. Do you propose this oregano-based composite material to be used only in pallets or else?/ which part of the pallet would be suitable? 

In line 34, the referred "were 3 samples" should be improved. The terminology is not properly used, the manuscript needs improvement in this direction. In line 40, the "where" is not proper. In line 52, check again the choice of the verb "contemplates". In line 54, "is" should be changed to "are". In line 81, the "For the development of this article" needs improvement. In line 94, what is "blinding"? In line 92, replace "divided into" with "based on". Line 94, "carried out" should be replaced with "prepared". Lines 95-96, grammaticall, syntactically incorrect. In 338 line, wrong tense.

Author Response

Thanks for your revisions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add the application value of this research and materials in abstract. There are no more comments to this version of draft. 

Author Response

Thanks for your revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

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.

The use of English language has been signifiicantly improved.

Author Response

Thanks for your revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf