Preparation and Properties of Wood Plastic Composites with Desirable Features Using Poplar and Five Recyclable Plastic Wastes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The whole manuscript is not formatted in accordance with the requirements of the Journal Applied Sciences, which makes the review process a bit complicated. I’d recommend to the authors to refer to the Instructions for Authors of the journal and re-format the manuscript accordingly.

The manuscript is focused on investigating the mechanical and hydrophobic properties of wood plastic composites (WPC) fabricated by hot molding and using five different recycled plastics and poplar wood flour.

In lines 1-2, I’d recommend to revise the title of the paper in order to make it more specific and precise, especially by replacing/revising the word “problematic”.

In general, the abstract of the manuscript (lines 17 to 29) and the keywords (line 30) correspond to the title, aims and objectives of the manuscript.

In lines 18 – 20, the first sentence of the abstract is true but in my opinion it is too general and does not give any specific information about the aims and objectives of the manuscript. My recommendation is to revise or remove it.

In line 21, “incorporated” should be revised to “incorporating”.

In line 23, “flexible strength” should be corrected to “flexural strength”, which is the appropriate term.

In line 30, Keywords, I’d recommend to include the full term, i.e. “wood plastic composites” instead of the abbreviation.

In lines 53 – 62, the text does not belong to the Introduction part, it is more appropriate to the Materials and Methods section.

In line 56, please revise “fourier” to “Fourier”, i.e. use capital letter.

In line 59 – 62, the statement “WPC with desirable characteristics such as high mechanical properties, good hydrophobicity and environmental friendliness was successfully prepared at a lower cost (Fig. 1c) than the medium density fiberboard (MDF) and high density fiberboard (HDF).” does not belong to the Introduction. Even if the statement is correct, which should be properly justified in the Results and Analysis section, the way it is prepared in should be a part of the Conclusions. You cannot state the developed composites have better properties compared to MDF and/or HDF before presenting the results of the research. In addition, it is not very appropriately to compare WPC with fiberboard panels. Please revise this part.

Overall, the Introduction part is not properly written and should be thoroughly revised.

In line 69, please use the common name “black poplar” as the Latin name (Populus nigra) suggest.

In lines 73-74, please explain the pressing regime applied. Why did you use the exact press duration, pressure and temperature? Please also provide relevant information about the hot press used (company, city, country).

In lines 113-114, the different figures, all entitled Figure 2, are not of a very good quality which disturbs their proper comprehension by the reader. Please provide better quality figures (larger ones).

The same remark applies to Figure 3 (lines 136-137). Please provide better quality figures.

The results obtained for the physical properties, dimensional and thermal stability of the developed WPC are not properly discussed. I’d recommend to compare the results of the current study with previously published research in the field of WPC, which has been a highly-explored scientific area in the recent years.

Overall, the Conclusions (lines 184-196) are consistent with the results and reflect the main findings of the study. I’d recommend to include some more information on the practical application of the results.

The references cited are appropriate and correspond to the topic of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript deals with the investigation of the mechanical and hydrophobic properties of WPC fabricated by hot molding using problematic plastic wastes.

Suggestions:

Title: Please be more specific about plastic wastes used in the research.

Abstract: First sentence is too general, no need to add it in the abstract.

LIne 23: Flexible can be composite, strength is flexural. 

LIne 26-27: Please discuss in the abstract only properties you examined in your research.

LIne 30: Please be more precise in keywords.

LIne 40-41: transformation ... could be one of the promising alternatives (not the only one), please rephrase.

Lines 42-52: This part of the introduction is insufficient. Please check some well-known works in this area and discuss more properly please:

Gardner, D.J., Han, Y. & Wang, L. Wood–Plastic Composite Technology. Curr Forestry Rep 1, 139–150 (2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.017

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/34033910/wood-plastic-composites

LInes 53-32, please move this discussion to the Materials and methods part.

Please add the aim of your research, also a novelty.

LIne 69: Please be more specific about the samples preparation and tools used - wood source, plastic types/source, samples drying, pressing, cooling.

LIne 83: Please be more specific about the TGA, did you use an oxygen atmosphere? What gas was used?, gas flow? samples weighing?

LInes 96-97: Please add more deeply the explanation.

Line 104: flexible - flexular

Results and discussion part are insufficient. Please discuss your results more deeply and compare your results with previously published results of other authors. 

Please add also the novelty and limitations of your research.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my initial remarks on the presented manuscript. I believe the revised version has been significantly improved. 

Author Response

Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

thank you for processing my comment. 

I have some more suggestions:

The title should be more appropriate to the research you provided.

Introduction: Line 33-34: you refer to old data, it needs to be updated.

The introduction is generally to weak, it lacks previous research results in this area. Authors should focus on the research aims, the importance of the topic, previous results.

Materials and methods: Poorly described material used, please be more specific.

Production parameters are extreme and practically unusable. Please explain why you have chosen these parameters.

Samples preparation for tests are completely missing.

What about statistical data? ANOVA? Significance of results?

Results and discussion: Please discuss your research compared to other authors in this area.

Conclusions: Please add novelty of your research and recommendations for practice. 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx