Petrographic and Chemical Characterization of the Frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (Central Italy, 15th Century)
, Lorena C. Giannossa 2,3, Marco Lezzerini 4, Annarosa Mangone 2,3, Claudio Mazzoli 1, Stefano Pagnotta 4, Marcello Spampinato 4, Alfonso Zoleo 5 and Giacomo Eramo 3,6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections," is very interesting and innovative. The use of microstratigraphic analysis on thin sections provides a detailed understanding of the materials used and their application techniques, which is valuable in the preservation and restoration of such cultural heritage.
The article is well-written and organized, with clear and concise descriptions of the methods and results. The authors have also provided high-quality images of the thin sections, which aid in understanding the petrographic and chemical composition of the frescoes.
However, introduction and discussion sections are too short. Please separate the discussion from the conclusion. Expand the introduction and discussion sections.
Overall, the article presents valuable information on the petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti, and is a valuable contribution to the field of art conservation and preservation.
The article "Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections," is very interesting and innovative. The use of microstratigraphic analysis on thin sections provides a detailed understanding of the materials used and their application techniques, which is valuable in the preservation and restoration of such cultural heritage.
The article is well-written and organized, with clear and concise descriptions of the methods and results. The authors have also provided high-quality images of the thin sections, which aid in understanding the petrographic and chemical composition of the frescoes.
However, introduction and discussion sections are too short. Please separate the discussion from the conclusion. Expand the introduction and discussion sections.
Overall, the article presents valuable information on the petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti, and is a valuable contribution to the field of art conservation and preservation.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
The article "Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections," is very interesting and innovative. The use of microstratigraphic analysis on thin sections provides a detailed understanding of the materials used and their application techniques, which is valuable in the preservation and restoration of such cultural heritage.
The article is well-written and organized, with clear and concise descriptions of the methods and results. The authors have also provided high-quality images of the thin sections, which aid in understanding the petrographic and chemical composition of the frescoes.
> However, introduction and discussion sections are too short. Please separate the discussion from the conclusion. Expand the introduction and discussion sections.
< The introduction and discussion sections were expanded and a final chapter of conclusions was added.
Overall, the article presents valuable information on the petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti, and is a valuable contribution to the field of art conservation and preservation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled “Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections” presents an interesting study that attempts to investigate the stratigraphy and microstructure of the frescoes of the church San Panfilo in Tornimparte, through the study of the frescoes’ petrography, mineralogy and chemistry.
The structure of the paper is the appropriate and has a logical order (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions). It is suggested to separate the chapters’ discussion and conclusions in order to be clearer. The analytical methods that were used are well described. The literature has been used correctly, even though more recent references are suggested to be added in the manuscript.
However, there are a few minor corrections and clarifications that have to be made prior to publication in Applied Sciences Journal. Therefore, Minor Revision is suggested.
1. The introduction chapter is informative but not sufficient. It is suggested to add more data, references in the introduction chapter. For example, has this procedure been followed by other researchers in other frescoes? What are their own conclusion regarding this approach?
2. The text should be slightly improved, it is suggested to cite the Figures 2,3,4,6 within the manuscript. Please maintain a way of listing figures within the manuscript, for example either (Figure 1) or (Fig.1).
3. Please explain the use of the question mark within the Table 1.
4. Figures 4,8 the diagrams need a better description in order to be more informative and sufficient for the reader.
4. Figure 5,6, need improvement, please provide a description for the letters A, B, C.
5. Line 291, there is a misstatement please replace “Figure 9” with “Figure 10”, “Figure 9” appears twice.
6. Table 2 is referred to the manuscript after it has been presented, it is suggested to be first referred to and then presented.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
The manuscript titled “Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections” presents an interesting study that attempts to investigate the stratigraphy and microstructure of the frescoes of the church San Panfilo in Tornimparte, through the study of the frescoes’ petrography, mineralogy and chemistry.
The structure of the paper is the appropriate and has a logical order (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions). It is suggested to separate the chapters’ discussion and conclusions in order to be clearer. The analytical methods that were used are well described. The literature has been used correctly, even though more recent references are suggested to be added in the manuscript.
However, there are a few minor corrections and clarifications that have to be made prior to publication in Applied Sciences Journal. Therefore, Minor Revision is suggested.
> 1. The introduction chapter is informative but not sufficient. It is suggested to add more data, references in the introduction chapter. For example, has this procedure been followed by other researchers in other frescoes? What are their own conclusion regarding this approach?
< The introduction was extended to better contextualize the artwork and the diagnostic intervention performed.
> 2. The text should be slightly improved, it is suggested to cite the Figures 2,3,4,6 within the manuscript. Please maintain a way of listing figures within the manuscript, for example either (Figure 1) or (Fig.1).
< The figures mentioned are all cited in the text now. Also, the citation style was made consistent throughout, using the guidelines of the journals (that is, Figure X).
> 3. Please explain the use of the question mark within the Table 1.
< The relevant explanation was added in the caption.
> 4. Figures 4,8 the diagrams need a better description in order to be more informative and sufficient for the reader.
< A more in-depth description was added in the caption of the two figures.
> 4. Figure 5,6, need improvement, please provide a description for the letters A, B, C.
< The caption was edited including what the letters refer to.
> 5. Line 291, there is a misstatement please replace “Figure 9” with “Figure 10”, “Figure 9” appears twice.
< The numbering was corrected.
> 6. Table 2 is referred to the manuscript after it has been presented, it is suggested to be first referred to and then presented.
< The table was moved after the in-text reference, as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this article, the link between discussion and results is striking from the beginning. Authors should separate and expand these two chapters. There should be more items in the References, 5 is definitely not enough, which actually affects the "discussion" chapter, which is so shortened. I believe that at least 20-30 items of literature devoted to the issues raised in the text can be cited.
In figure 2 you need to name what layers A,B,C are. The reader should be clear about what the image is about.
In general, this text is well written, but it seems to me that it should be organized. The division into research methods is not a good result. It's just a bunch of reports. Instead, I would focus on the trials, divide them into less complicated and more complex ones, and describe each of them separately, giving the results of all the tests carried out adequately to the sample. In its current form, the reader has a big problem with reading comprehension of this text.
Please, rewrite this text agin.
Author Response
> In this article, the link between discussion and results is striking from the beginning. Authors should separate and expand these two chapters. There should be more items in the References, 5 is definitely not enough, which actually affects the "discussion" chapter, which is so shortened. I believe that at least 20-30 items of literature devoted to the issues raised in the text can be cited.
< The discussion section was expanded and final conclusions were added. The number of references was increased too.
> In figure 2 you need to name what layers A,B,C are. The reader should be clear about what the image is about.
< The caption of Fig. 2 was extended with information on the sequence of layers. The same thing was done also for Fig. 3.
> In general, this text is well written, but it seems to me that it should be organized. The division into research methods is not a good result. It's just a bunch of reports. Instead, I would focus on the trials, divide them into less complicated and more complex ones, and describe each of them separately, giving the results of all the tests carried out adequately to the sample. In its current form, the reader has a big problem with reading comprehension of this text.
< Because the laboratory work was divided among several units, we preferred to present the results according to the analytical methods used. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have retained this layout, while trying to improve the discussion of the data.
Please, rewrite this text again.
Reviewer 4 Report
“Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections”.
General Issue
In my opinion, the manuscript "Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes of Saturnino Gatti (Central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analysis on thin sections" presents a well-done study that assesses the geoscientific contribution to the mineralogical-petrographic characterization, identifying the stratigraphy, microstructure and composition of plasters, painting layers and painting techniques, with particular attention to compounds possibly related to the alteration processes of the frescoes and their components.
Overall, the methodology is correct and the data presented interesting. However, some revisions, including a more comprehensive literature review, are needed to improve the overall quality of the article.
Detailed Issue
The “Abstract” adequately captures the approach to the study and the results, however, my advice to the authors would be a review of the syntax of the text, which in my opinion is not very fluent.
In my opinion, the “Introduction” paragraph is concise and directly addresses the objective of the manuscript. However, the authors should provide a more comprehensive literature review to contextualise their study of the petrographic, mineralogical and chemical approaches used to identify the stratigraphy, microstructure and composition of the plasters, the paint layers (especially the inorganic pigments) and the painting techniques. In order to strengthen the argument and demonstrate the importance of the study, I believe that the authors should cite a number of recent works throughout the manuscript. My recommendations for references would be the following:
- Piovesan R., Mazzoli C., Maritan L. 2023. Production recipes of mortar-based materials from ancient Pompeii by quantitative image analysis approach: The microstratigraphy of plasters in the Temple of Venus. Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 59, 2023, Pages 57-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.11.002
- Columbu S., Usai M., Rispoli C., Fancello D. 2022. Lime and Cement Plasters from 20th Century Buildings: Raw Materials and Relations between Mineralogical–Petrographic Characteristics and Chemical–Physical Compatibility with the Limestone Substrate. Minerals 2022, 12, 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12020226
- Pecchioni E., Pallecchi P., Giachi G., Calandra S., Santo A.P. 2022. The Preparatory Layers in the Etruscan Paintings of the Tomba dei Demoni Alati in the Sovana Necropolis (Southern Tuscany, Italy). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073542
- Singh M.R., Yadav R. 2021 Microstructural analysis and characterization of lime mortar of seventeenth century Raigad hill fort from western India. Indian J Hist. Sci. 56, 217–227 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43539-021-00023-z
- Ergenç D., Fort R., Varas−Muriel M.J. et al. 2021 Mortars and plasters—How to characterize aerial mortars and plasters. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 13, 197 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01398-x
- Marrocchino E, Lattao V, Eftekhari N, Conte AM, Franceschini S, Pepi S, Rizzo M, Vaccaro C. 2020. Rationalist architecture in rural villages: petro-morphological characterization of natural asbestos fibers in decorative plasters used for artificial stones. Episodes 2020; 43:893-908. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2020/0200s08
- Crupi V., Fazio B., Fiocco G., Galli G., La Russa M.F., Licchelli M., Majolino D., Malagodi M., Ricca M., Ruffolo S.A., Venuti V. 2018. Multi-analytical study of Roman frescoes from Villa dei Quintili (Rome, Italy), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 21, 2018, Pages 422-432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.028.
The “Materials and Methods” paragraph is well structured and clearly describes the examination methods adopted in this study.
In the “Results” section, the authors present some very interesting data, and I appreciate the decision to discuss separately the data obtained using the different methods of analysis. However, I suggest that the discussion of the results in the different subsections could be better structured to make the reading more fluent and understandable for a reader unfamiliar with the field. For example, the authors could provide a brief discussion of the data for each of the samples and then conclude the subsection with some kind of short discussion. I would also suggest that the authors implement Table 1, indicating for each sample which of the analytical methods it has been subjected to, and add to this section a table that summarises the results obtained for each sample. In addition, I think it would be useful to add some bibliographical references to the text. These would refer to the different analytical methods used in other contexts.
The “Discussion and Conclusions” section does a good job of summarising the interesting findings of this paper. However, my suggestion would be for the authors to include in the discussion some more recent literature references than those cited. Furthermore, the authors should have a sub-section in the paper with a summary of the results and the implications of the study for the conservation of the object of their study from a cultural heritage perspective.
Overall, the paper is an excellent contribution to the study of Saturnino Gatti's frescoes in the church of San Panfilo in Tornimparte (AQ) and their characterisation. With the proposed revisions, the paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
REVIEWER 4
“Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections”.
General Issue
In my opinion, the manuscript "Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes of Saturnino Gatti (Central Italy, 15th century): microstratigraphic analysis on thin sections" presents a well-done study that assesses the geoscientific contribution to the mineralogical-petrographic characterization, identifying the stratigraphy, microstructure and composition of plasters, painting layers and painting techniques, with particular attention to compounds possibly related to the alteration processes of the frescoes and their components.
Overall, the methodology is correct and the data presented interesting. However, some revisions, including a more comprehensive literature review, are needed to improve the overall quality of the article.
Detailed Issue
> The “Abstract” adequately captures the approach to the study and the results, however, my advice to the authors would be a review of the syntax of the text, which in my opinion is not very fluent.
< The Abstract was rewritten and the text was revised for English.
> In my opinion, the “Introduction” paragraph is concise and directly addresses the objective of the manuscript. However, the authors should provide a more comprehensive literature review to contextualise their study of the petrographic, mineralogical and chemical approaches used to identify the stratigraphy, microstructure and composition of the plasters, the paint layers (especially the inorganic pigments) and the painting techniques. In order to strengthen the argument and demonstrate the importance of the study, I believe that the authors should cite a number of recent works throughout the manuscript. My recommendations for references would be the following: [...]
< The introduction was extended to better contextualize the artwork. We thank you for the recommended bibliographic selection.
The “Materials and Methods” paragraph is well structured and clearly describes the examination methods adopted in this study.
> In the “Results” section, the authors present some very interesting data, and I appreciate the decision to discuss separately the data obtained using the different methods of analysis. However, I suggest that the discussion of the results in the different subsections could be better structured to make the reading more fluent and understandable for a reader unfamiliar with the field. For example, the authors could provide a brief discussion of the data for each of the samples and then conclude the subsection with some kind of short discussion. I would also suggest that the authors implement Table 1, indicating for each sample which of the analytical methods it has been subjected to, and add to this section a table that summarises the results obtained for each sample. In addition, I think it would be useful to add some bibliographical references to the text. These would refer to the different analytical methods used in other contexts.
< The discussion was reorganized in subsection dedicated to the different stages of the execution of the artwork. Table 1 was completed with information on the techniques applied on each sample. The result summary, instead, is already included in Table 2, in the relevant section.
> The “Discussion and Conclusions” section does a good job of summarising the interesting findings of this paper. However, my suggestion would be for the authors to include in the discussion some more recent literature references than those cited. Furthermore, the authors should have a sub-section in the paper with a summary of the results and the implications of the study for the conservation of the object of their study from a cultural heritage perspective.
< A final summary of the results was added after the Discussion section.
Overall, the paper is an excellent contribution to the study of Saturnino Gatti's frescoes in the church of San Panfilo in Tornimparte (AQ) and their characterisation. With the proposed revisions, the paper can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors are congratulated for the document 'Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15 th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections', it has an interesting structure, the only pertinent observations that I can comment on are:
Dear authors, the methodological contribution is interesting and applicable to heritage, the methodological part should be reviewed because it can contribute more to the research..
Title:
'Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15 th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections', the title is very long, it is recommended that it does not exceed 14-16 words and that it generates an attractive and interesting narration.
Abstract:
The Abstract it should be restructured and clearly emphasize the methodology and the advantages of the study highlighting its results and conclusions.
Introduction
Dear authors, avoid problems of writing and structure of the paragraphs, you repeat ideas frequently, this does not support a focused and fluid reading.
It would provide in an interesting way a timeline of fresco painting that puts in context some of the historical facts of the artistic good as well as the movable good.
Materials and Methods:
Methods
To find a greater scientific contribution help us to understand the method used in the research, it is understood the semi-quantitative data obtained by the samples in the laboratory, but how do you combine all the information?
Discussion
It will be necessary to clarify the relationship of number of samples analyzed and let us understand that they are a specific pictographic hypothesis "of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti ".
Conclusions
Include this section, taking into account that you should focus on each of the findings of the methodology and the results obtained.
References
Regarding the references. There is a lack of references from authors with wide experience in the local study.
Review current research and cite research groups that are constantly advancing on this topic.
Author Response
REVIEWER 5
The authors are congratulated for the document 'Petrographic and chemical characterization of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti (central Italy, 15 th century): microstratigraphic analyses on thin sections', it has an interesting structure, the only pertinent observations that I can comment on are:
Dear authors, the methodological contribution is interesting and applicable to heritage, the methodological part should be reviewed because it can contribute more to the research..
Title:
< A new title was proposed according to your suggestions.
Abstract:
> The Abstract it should be restructured and clearly emphasize the methodology and the advantages of the study highlighting its results and conclusions.
< The abstract was rewritten taking into account the suggestions of the referees.
Introduction
> Dear authors, avoid problems of writing and structure of the paragraphs, you repeat ideas frequently, this does not support a focused and fluid reading.
It would provide in an interesting way a timeline of fresco painting that puts in context some of the historical facts of the artistic good as well as the movable good.
< A new introduction has been written trying to better contextualize the artwork.
Materials and Methods:
Methods
> To find a greater scientific contribution help us to understand the method used in the research, it is understood the semi-quantitative data obtained by the samples in the laboratory, but how do you combine all the information?
< This section was improved to better explain the research design.
Discussion
> It will be necessary to clarify the relationship of number of samples analyzed and let us understand that they are a specific pictographic hypothesis "of the frescoes by Saturnino Gatti ".
< The discussion was reorganized in subsection dedicated to the different stages of the execution of the artwork.
Conclusions
> Include this section, taking into account that you should focus on each of the findings of the methodology and the results obtained.
< A summary of the results obtained was added.
References
> Regarding the references. There is a lack of references from authors with wide experience in the local study.
Review current research and cite research groups that are constantly advancing on this topic.
< The number of bibliographic references has been increased as requested.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, I can see the progress in the work and it is written much better. I am satisfied with this work and I believe that at present the text is well written and suitable for printing.
Reviewer 4 Report
I would like to thank the authors for the corrected version of their manuscript.
The revision made the paper much better.
