Improving the Energy Efficiency of Equipment for the Impregnation of Roof Trusses—Modeling and Practical Implementation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the publication is relevant and interesting.
The comment is that the title of the publication is too long -Improving the energy efficiency of equipment for the impregnation of roof trusses - modelling, simulation and practical implementation of a heat exchange and a flow stirrerImproving the energy efficiency of equipment for the impregnation of roof trusses - modelling, simulation and practical implementation of a heat exchanger and a flow stirrer (25 words).
It is suggested to shorten it to 13 (maximum) MAIN words reflecting the essence of the research.
When formulating the relevance of the research, it would be worthwhile to add a COMPARATIVE analysis of the situation as a whole (in the world) and emphasize UNSOLVED tasks (or tasks that need improvement). This would emphasize the importance of this study.
Illustrative material is visual and reflects the main points of the study.
References correspond to the topic of the publication and their number is sufficient for this publication.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Major comments
1) Abstract is a description summary of impregnation. In the last sentence "... higher and much more repeatable quality." is understandable but subjective conclusion.
2) Introduction: Unfortunately, there is no literature reference review and no citations in the Introduction section is in an unusual form for scientific paper writing. It is necessary that the authors should make literature survey and cite relevant references.
3) On page 2: Authors mention about four most commonly used impregnation methods without any reference.
4) Page 3: At the end of Introduction section there is no purpose of the present work that distinguishes it from the available methods in the literature.
5) Page 3: What is the FOBOS M4 mixture method?
6) Pages 4-5: Impregnation method application is explained mentioning some ready software, but there is no explanation as to their relevance for the applied method. For instance, PTC MathCad, Matlab, CFD simulation and ANSYS methods are not explained even briefly.
7) Pages 6-7: "3.1. Heat exchanger selection " section describes the heat exchanger description again without any comparison with existing methodologies.
8) Page 10: All of sudden [7] reference is given but there is no [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]
9) Page 10: Eq. (2) is given without proper reference citation. The same applies to Eqs. (3)-(7).
10) Page 13: It would have been better if the authors presented the equation of the lines in Figure 6, if possible.
11) Page 14: Eq. (9) needs proper citation from the literature. The same is valid for Eq. (10) on page 16.
12) Page 19: "5. Conclusions" section. It is full of descriptive conclusions without any improvement indication from the existing literature. The last sentence needs rewording in an objective manner indication the reasons for unsatisfactory quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors aimed at eliminating uncertainties associated with wood elements impregnation, among others. For that purpose, the modifications were incorporated in the wood impregnation equipment, numerical simulations were performed and designs were carried out. Overall, the paper is very nicely written and is recommended for publication after addressing following converns.
- Please highlight the novelty and significant contribution of this paper as the reviewer is little puzzled by the novelty of this paper?
- This paper lacks proper referencing. The reviewer recommends adding references throughout the manuscript to enhance the quality. Many statements require proper references. For instance the first statement of introduction require reference because it needs validations “Despite significant advances in technology and the construction of new materials, wood remains one of the most used building materials in the world”. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.
- The title of figures should be enhanced. Right now, the authors just used one or two words that seem a bit inappropriate.
- Figure 6 should be re-drawn with enhanced quality and presentation.
- Conclusions can be reduced and may be written in numberings if possible.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to my comments adequately.
