Effects of Refiner Plates with Different Fillings on TMP Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Could authors define more about the words "more aggressive bar pattern"?

2. Some details in the introduction were redundant, which made the section too long.

3. Authors should briefly tell the differences between the two plates in the introduction so authors would know what to expect in the manuscript.

4. How did you get the results in Table 1 and 2.

5. What is CTMP? Authors need to define this term at their first use.

6. Why did authors choose these two designs of the plates? How were they different from other common plates?

7. In my opinion, two designs were just too little to draw meaningful conclusions. Thus, the useability of the plates was limited.

8. Please provide all details of equipment used for the testing, including their brands and manufacturer's countries.

9. Section 3.1 should be moved to Section 2 as it was mostly about the design of the plates.

10. Replace " representatively" in page 7(line 222) with "respectively".

11. Most of the details in section 3.1 were not the results. They were just speculations and discussion, without actual measurements and appropriate references. In my opinion, I didn't get much novelty from this section.

12. How did authors find the refining energy and stock throughput?

13. In section 3.5, what is "bulk"? Was it a bulk density?

14. Correct typo in Figure 7a.

15. Authors should discuss more on why the change in pattern did not play an important role in optical properties.

Author Response

Responses to reviewers are attached as separate files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a systematic study. However, the performance of these two refiner plates are not compared sufficiently. The energy consumption are not discussed in this work. In addition, the effect of refiner patterns on the pulp product are not shown. These two issues are suggested to be investigated. 

Author Response

Responses to reviewers are attached as separate files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall,  the manuscript is well-written. There are some comments and suggestions:

 

1. In  subsection 2.2, page 3, Please include the details of the wood chips (in terms of size) and the liquor (composition and their charge)

2. In subsection 3.1, page 7, para 1, please check again the format of citing figure in the text, whether it should be written in "Figure" or "Fig.“

3. In subsection 3.3 page 9, 1. suggesting authors to rephase the 1st sentence. To the title and the objective of this research, the comparison between TMP and CTMP shouldn't be the main subject. The priority should be on the comparison of TP A and TP B.  Suggesting to re-phase the sentence to reduce the confusion of the reader.  

It would be better if you have a statistical analysis to support when you mention the results have significant differences. If the authors have done the statistical test, please include this in the manuscript.

4. In subsection 3.6, page 12, just a comment, usually opacity is correlated with bulkiness, but probably the changes of the bulkiness are insignificantly to affect the opacity. 

 

 

Author Response

Responses to reviewers are attached as separate files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors revised the manuscript well and replied to all of my comments satisfactorily.