CMC-Ca(OH)2-TiO2 Nanocomposite for Paper Relics Multifunctional Restoration: Strengthening, Deacidification, UV Effect Resistance, and Antimicrobial Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHow the CMC-Ca(OH)2, BC-Ca(OH)2, CMC-Ca(OH)2-TiO2 nanohybrids were made, how many of these films
You need to read why BC was used; bacterial cellulose is not demonstrated. More information is needed about CMC, for example, molecular weight or what degree of substitution you have; your description of the reagents used is fragile. The TiCl4, what concentration of hydrochloric acid what concentration was used,
It's important to mention the origin of the equipment used in the research, as it adds to the credibility of the study. The Antimicrobial Experiment should be specified under which standard it was performed, and it would be helpful to explain what PDA is.
Sample preparation for analysis needs to be described.
The article does not present discussion with other authors, please discuss your results with other authors, as they are presented for information but not for discussion.
The action of TiO2 particles has been studied as antimicrobial agents, but the mechanism of their antimicrobial action has not been elucidated. The article cannot be reviewed without discussion of these results with other authors, norms that validate their research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please improve the discussion
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “CMC-Ca(OH)2-TiO2 nanocomposite for paper relics multifunctional restoration: Strengthening, deacidification, UV aging resistance, and antimicrobial protection” presents an interesting analysis on the application of hybrid carboxymethyl cellulose -calcium hydroxide with adjunctive TiO2 to test the resistance of artificial ageing, reinforcement and antimicrobial protection of paper relics. The application of these materials is also performed in presence of some pigments and the total color variation is evaluated in relation to UV ageing. The manuscript is complete, all parts are balanced and well deepened. Some minor revisions are needed to improve the presentation of the results and uniform the style.
1. Keywords: why graphene oxide?
2. In general, the style of reference numbering is not homogeneous (sometimes superscript)
3. The number on the caption of figure 1 is wrong, should be figure 1 instead of figure 2.
4. Please increase the contrast of figure 1E because it is very difficult to distinguish something
5. Units in the graphs of figures 2C and 3B: why Tensile Index in Nm/m?
6. Lines 356-360 please add references.
7. Figures 3D-E do not provide evidence of the presence of fractures. How the differences between the hybrids are measured?
8. Figure 4 please explain the different color of rectangles: bright blue for CMC-Ca(OH)2 and red for CMC-Ca(OH)2-TiO2?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thank you for your work. The problem you consider is interesting, and I wish you to continue the studies.
The major remarks I have are as follows.
1.1. The introduction do not reflect several important problems in the studies of paper. In particular, the authors list the possible damages of the paper samples (lines 33-35) and discuss the problem of acidification (lines 41-53) but do not refer to the very important problem of foxings. I think, it is necessary to underline this problem separately (see for example, DOI: 10.1134/S1054660X09030220, DOI: 10.1063/1.4761984, DOI: 10.1366/13-07222).
1.2. Considering possible light induced changes and techniques of deacidification of paper (lines 72-95) the authors do not mention the results of laser induced paper changes (see for example, DOI: 10.1515/res-2013-0003).
1.3. Please discuss the possibility of diagnostics of cultural relics on paper materials after application of chemical substances including nanomaterials (lines 72-124). It is known, for example, that paper diagnostics may include identification of paper components using laser ablation (DOI: 10.1007/s00339-014-8848-7) or other techniques. Using contemporary chemical substances gives wrong composition of paper.
2.1. In experimental section (lines 137-140) please provide catalog numbers of substances purchased.
2.2. Please indicate, according to which source you have prepared the samples (lines 142-152).
2.3. Please explain, why have you been used such a parameters of UV aging (lines 163-166).
2.4. Actually, you do not perform accelerated aging (lines 163-166, line 204) since for this purpose one has to control relative humidity. Otherwise, the results of the influence cannot be compared to natural aging. I suggest to change “UV aging” to “UV effect”, for example.
3.1. Please, show the error bars in Figs. 2B, 2C, 3B, and 3C.
3.2. The data shown in Fig. 3A seem to be wrong at the wavelengths less than 300 nm. Diffuse reflectance spectra cannot be measured accurately in the case of absorbance greater than unity. Please change the range in the Figure and use absolute values of absorbance (not arb. units).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe results obtained were not discussed with other authors and are still the same as those obtained in the first review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author answered all the questions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you, the manuscript is suffuciently improved.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTHE OBSERVATIONS REQUESTED WERE MADE
