A Review of Applications of Nanocellulose to Preserve and Protect Cultural Heritage Wood, Paintings, and Historical Papers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this review article is to provide an overall view about the most recently applications of innovative bio-nanomaterials in the field of Cultural Heritage. It’s well written and the logic is clear. Some revisions should be made to further improve quality of this manuscript.

1.      More emphasize should be given to the potential mechanism of nanocellulose for the conservation of artistic heritage.

2.      Conclusions should be shortened to summarize the key points.

3.      Future research directions should be recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript number: applsci-2080059-peer-review-v1

Title of the manuscript: A Review of Applications of Nanocellulose to Preserve and Protect Cultural Heritage Wood, Paintings, and Historical Papers

 I found the review to be very well structured, with plenty of examples of nanocellulose characterization methods and applications, especially for the preservation and protection of wood, paintings, and historical works of cultural heritage, but I have a question for the authors.

1.According to table 2, line 231, BNC has weaker mechanical properties (tensile strength and Young`s modulus) compared to CNCs and CNFs. Do you think that BNC will have limited applicability for preserve and protect cultural heritage wood, paintings, and historical papers due to these properties?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript applsci-2080059 is well written and deserves publication after revision.

Some suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1. At the end of the Introduction indicate: novelty of the review, timeframe of the information research, databases searched, excluded databases (if the case). Follow closely the PRISMA guidelines for reviews BMJ 2021;372:n71

2.Improve English, word topic, grammar,  and typos. The text is hard to follow. For example, in the abstract line 15 eco-friendly should be eco friendliness, in the introduction line 66, replace "for which it is" with being or rephrase.

3. Increase text size, improve resolution of table 2, the text is almost illegible.

4. cultural heritage research is an advanced research. improve table 4 by indicating in the last column the bibliographical resources where the listed characterization techniques are used.

5. Improve definition of CH, or CH artefacts at line 332.

6. A table centralizing the advantages and disadvantages of nanocellulose application for wood, paintings and paper conservation would be useful as supplementary information or included in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx