Cinnamon Bark Oil as an Effective Fungicide in Protecting the Surface of Wood-Based Softboards against the Development of Mold Fungi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While this is an interesting paper, I think that the manuscript needs some major revision. In Chapter 2.3 it is not clear how the samples were prepared. Here a picture of the setup is absolutely necessary.

In the results section there are noumerous graphs and tables, bat they are either hardly used in the text or not at all. Either you need the data for your story, than you need to describe and explain the figures/tables, or you do not need them, then leave them out.

It is difficult to follow the arguments of the authors, as one has to find the data in the figures and tables without help from the authors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough evaluation of the manuscript content. We have evaluated the paper again and we hope we were able to make all corrections which you pointed out. Below is the list of your remarks and our replies.

Thank you for your important attention. We have tried to improve the text of the publication to make it more readable and easier to read. We have added links to all figures and tables in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is too preliminary. The quality of this manuscript need be improved. Major revision is suggested.

Other comments:

1. Line 169, what does "[..]." represent?

2. Figure 5 is not clear.

3. "4. Discussion " is too short. In-depth discussion should be made compared to related references.

4. The novelty of this work need be further emphasized in "4. Discussion".

5. The economic evaluation need be discussed in "4. Discussion".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough evaluation of the manuscript content. We have evaluated the paper again and we hope we were able to make all corrections which you pointed out. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction:

Line 64: should read “white-rot and brown-rot decay”

Line 66: what do you mean by interesting issue? Do you mean another avenue for exploration?

Can add references regarding hardwood having naturally durable properties and how some research has used hardwood extracts to protect softwoods.

Refs: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.03.007; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2018.01.010;

Other pubs: hardwood extractives as wood treatments against fungi - Google Scholar

Line 73: what are these known fungicidal properties?

Please discuss the mode of action of cinnamon extracts.

Line 87: repetitive

What are Euro pallets used for? Why is it important for them to remain mold-free?

Line 90: What are these disinfection processes?

Why aren’t typical wood treatments/sprays used here? Borates, copper-containing wood treatments?

Can cinnamon oil penetrate the wood? Does is complex with the wood?

SB wood can’t be pressure treated? Why?

Does cinnamon oil breakdown in UV?

Lines 97-109: English should be revised.

Please discuss the patented jet saturation device further. Why use it as opposed to a vacuum/pressure treatment application? Is it constantly wetting the surface of SB? How long does the wood take to absorb enough treatment material?

Materials:

What wood species did the SB consist of?

Modification of carrier material? What does that mean?

How much treatment material is absorbed? How long does it take to treat each sample? How many samples can be treated at one time?

Only one face of the sample was treated?

Degree of fouling? What?

Discuss the accelerated aging process? Why was this done?

Was a standard mold testing procedure followed? Please cite. ASTM D4445 is typically used. Why didn’t the authors use this standard?

Standard for GCMS?

Results:

Figure numbers are wrong in the text. Please adjust.

Lines 199-201: “The 199 conducted research shows that the effective dose of biocide that completely inhibits the 200 growth of the Trichoderma viride fungus cannot be less than 200 g/m2”.  This is inaccurate. Tv grew after 14 days in 4c and 4e.

“Accelerated 203 and natural aging tests also prove the good biocidal effectiveness of the cinnamon oil solution”. No. See above comment.

Line 215: what makes this growth significantly delayed? It grew at 8 days. I wouldn’t call this significant delay.

Stats would be easy to understand if added to graphs.

Line 232: Fouling of SB? Please rewrite this throughout document.

C. globosum is the correct abbreviation of this fungus. Please fix throughout document.

Singular/1 = fungus. Multiple/2+ = fungi. Please fix in Tables 2 and 3.

Line 244: should read as individual fungus

Table 5 suggested to change ordinary name to common name

Was the ID of volatile compounds performed on SB samples exposed to fungi? This is unclear.

Suggest to change impregnated to coated or treated throughout the document. The cinnamon oil wasn’t pressure-treated into the sample. The authors are speculating it was “impregnated”. Impregnated implies that the treatment penetrated into the wood cell wall of the sample. Did it?

Figure 5 is difficult to interpret as is. Can the classifications be added to the figure instead of just a #?

“the heat map clearly indicates the biocidal effect of the oil against the T. viride”... it indicates some effect against growth for 7 days. Not 14.

Don’t write the T. viride fungus. No need for the before and fungus after. Change throughout text for both organisms.

I’m not convinced that Figure 6 is necessary to the manuscript.

Why wasn’t leaching performed? Does exposure to moisture play a role in how well the oil will stay on the wood? This is a necessary test in my opinion.

Discussion:

Line 293: more and more? Please rewrite this

“Very effective fungicide” that is a very bold claim seeing as both fungi grew after 8 and 14 days. Please rephrase this statement.

Please discuss the mode of action of eugenol and cinnamic aldehyde

Line 304-305: safer biocide according to who? Citation please

Line 313: what is deep decay of wood?

Line 316: please discuss what Hsu et al found and how it relates to the present work

Line 318-324 is more suitable for the introduction

Line 323: so the spraying achieved in this study did not show even distribution? Please further explain

Line 326: again I’m not convinced this application is actually penetrating into the wood therefore it shouldn’t be written as impregnation.

Line 328: “successfully used to protect boards against mold” Again this is not true. Rewrite.

Line 331: substances of natural origin? Natural compounds would be a more appropriate way to say this.

Conclusions:

Line 334: “was out of the wood” yes, but this was not tested. A leaching test is necessary for this work.

Line 335-336: “nothing prevents the use of such natural biocides from being limited to appropriate conditions of use or specific wood materials” what does this mean?

Line 337-338: You can’t make that claim as both fungi grew after 8 and 14 days.

Line 339: “precise dosing of the biocide” You measured every sample to ensure all boards had the exact same dosing? Please include this information.

Several instances throughout document that English needs to be re-written. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough evaluation of the manuscript content. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However, there are several issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication. In line 25, the "SB" should be explained. When the scientific names of species are first time mentioned in the text, you should refer to the whole scientific name (lines 28-29). What do you mean by the term "softboards"?maybe low-density fibreboard? In line 66, the phrase "preserve the durability" does not seem appropriate, it needs improvement. In line 88, please add the relevant study of  https://doi.org/10.3390/f10121111 as a reference to support this statement. The paragraph in lines 86-96, seems to be a repetition of more generic information and approach that has been found also (rightfully) in the beginning of introduction chapter. In line 98, referring to " bactericidal and fungicidal properties", please provide a reference. In the last paragraph of introduction, you use both present and past tenses, while this should be homogenous when describing the content of the current article. You did not provide almost any information on the substrate material whose biological durability was studied. Panels or boards? What was this material made from?Was it solid wood?of which species? maybe it was wood-based product?of which type? Provide as well the moisture content and density of this material. In line 192, were should replaced to "was". Would you propose this oil to be used in impregnation of the whole mass of wood (apart from the surface application through spraying)? Please, provide an image of the experimental samples of yours, during the processes and the DOI numbers in references list.

Satisfying.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough evaluation of the manuscript content. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for significantly improving your manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This revised manuscript can be accepted as it is.

Reviewer 4 Report

As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised version of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.

Acceptable.