Interactions between a Buffered Amine Oxide Impregnation Carrier and an Acrylic Resin, and Their Relationship with Moisture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your comments and your very quick revision. We are glad that you enjoyed our publication. Hopefully, the changes we made will have improved it further.

Abstract

• Line 13: subjected instead of submitted

Introduction

• This is an excellent introduction. However, in order to be improved further and to fully describe the state of the art in this area, I would like you to add a paragraph or so, about the wood surface treatments based on nanotechnology.

Materials and Methods

• It is a well written and well described session. It would be nice for the readers to see a graphical abstract or a flow diagram of the experimental procedure applied in the present study.

Results and Discussion and Conclusion

• It is a well written and well discussed session. The conclusions are sound.

As a general remark, I would like to say that it was my pleasure to review this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

„Interactions between a Buffered Amine Oxide Impregnation Carrier and an Acrylic Resin, and Their Relationship with Moisture” is an interesting article raising important issues of wood protection. Application of a complex impregnation mixture increases chances for proper wood protection against all destructive factors. However, on the other hand, the complexity of the system allows interactions between its particular ingredients, which may result in the formation of undesirable new substances or/and side effect. Therefore, the presented type of research seems particularly interesting from both a scientific and practical perspective.

A few comments and questions to the presented manuscript:

• The applied impregnation method involved 15 s dipping in the treatment solution. Because samples dedicated to different measurements had different dimensions, we can expect that the effectiveness of the applied treatment was different for each sample size. How can we then compare the results obtained and make general conclusions? Please, explain this issue.
• Are the physical and chemical properties of indigo identical to the properties of Propiconazole to make it possible to compare their penetrability? Can we consider the results obtained for indigo with a molar mass of 262 g/mol as equivalent to the results for Propiconazole with a molar mass of about 342 g/mol? Please, explain.
• In the case of Encor® DT 100, why different proportions were used in a mixture than for other resins? It affects the results obtained and makes it difficult to compare the results and draw conclusions.
• What was the criterion for selection only some particular treatments for the measurement of sorption isotherms? Why were these measurements not performed on aged samples? If we want to know the moisture properties of the proposed complex treatments, perhaps it will be useful to examine all the variants.
• In my opinion, Figure 4 contributes nothing to the manuscript.
• In line 303 the Authors say “While the amine oxides bring some hydrophobicity to the hydrophilic uncoated wood (R0)”, but earlier, in line 75, they stated: “the influence of the hydrophilic amine oxides on the coating was investigated with permeability trials”. Please, explain this more clearly.
• Figure 5 left is hardly readable. Please improve it.
• In lines 327-333, the Authors say “It was found that all the coated samples had similar EMCs, which was way below the EMC of the uncoated samples. It is explained by the mass of the coating, which increased the initial dry mass of the samples by about 50%. Taking this detail into account, the mass of water absorbed actually becomes slightly superior in the samples with a coating. Since acrylic coatings are hydrophobic, it can be estimated that only a small proportion of this water is contained into the coating and that the EMC of the wood samples with and without coating may be comparable, which is consistent with the literature”. I think that a new figure presenting sorption isotherms corrected for the extra weight of the coatings will be useful here to prove the correctness of the statement and facilitate further conclusions concerning water vapour sorption by the tested samples.
• Since the effect of ageing affected all the measured properties of wood samples significantly, perhaps a short summary of the results of this process will be useful – for example in the form of a table showing all the samples with a short description of the effect observed, including changes in wood dimensions and cracking formation.
• In lines 434-436, the Authors say “After 14 cycles, the tensile strength decreased, which hints that some time after the seventh cycle, the bonds between the coating and the wood began to break, leading to a loss of adhesion.”, but from the Figure 7 it is clear that in the case of pine the situation was different for samples R1-AO1, R2-AO0 and R3-AO0, and for white spruce for samples R1-AO0, R1-AO1, R1-AO2, R2-AO0, R2-AO1, R2-AO2 and R3-AO0. Please, explain it more clearly.
• The Authors discuss the results of the statistical analysis but do not present them.
• I find the last conclusion to be rather speculation since we do not have any proof for this.
• Could the Authors make any summary conclusions about the usefulness of the examined treatments for industrial practice?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been carefully corrected. I have no more comments about the article and recommend it to publication.