Spectral Light Fading of Inkjet Prints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript is well written and the research is iteresting. However there are some things taht nedd to be improved for easier reading and a better understanding of the work done. the figures have to be improved, for istance in figure 1 it is not possible to distinguish the spectra acquired before and after "aging". 

In the line 130-131 you tell about gaseous pollutants but which ones are you referreing to in particular?

In teh sentence from line 189 to 191 you claim that the infrared light does not contribute to the degradation of materials. In reality it is known that the infrared light cause overheating of the object and therefore it can degrade the materials.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a good topic which falls within the scope of the journal. But, before its possible consideration for publication, authors are encouraged to go with these points:

- Abstract, the meaning of the LED abbreviation should be mentioned from the first use.

- What is the novelty on this work. This should be stated in the abstract section.

- Introduction is not well elaborated on this version; it should be improved adding more papers dealing with the same concept in this paper.

- References 1, 2 and 3 should be done following the Heritage journal style.

- The main contributions of this paper should be added at the end of the introduction section.

- In overall, your results are not well discussed, this section s needs improvement

Author Response

Please see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper needs major revisions about the quality of the figures. During the reviewing process, it has been very difficult to appreciate differences about the different curves plotted in so small figures, characterized by an insufficient resolution also for reading the labels and other alphanumeric symbols.

At the beginning of the Materials and Methods sections, several data about the LED lamps – lines 65-69 – would be better presented to the reader if they are given in a tab le format.

In line 80 it is mentioned a “thin polyester foil”, used to prevent pollutants to be absorbed into the nano-porous surface of the sample paper. It is not clear if this foil has been kept between the LED lamps and the paper during the light-irradiation experiments. In this case what is the contribution of this polyester foil to the spectral absorption of light?

At line 152, it is not clear what is the meaning/value of delta-density, because it seems that there is some mathematical symbol missing.

In the sub-section 3.3 a factor analysis has been introduced without any bibliographic reference. Moreover, the factors reported in table 1 could be better expressed as normalized values, giving to the reader the possibility of evaluating directly the percentual of each narrow band LED.

In table 2 it is not clear what is the error of the reported experimental/predicted values.

Author Response

Please find your commenst discussed in the attached file below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Only few points need to be considered:

1) the text of  lines 208-211 is identical to lines 201-204;

2) factors of table 1 of the new version of the manuscript are identical to the values of the previous version. Therefore, the table has not been changed. The normalization - that I suggested in my first report- was not with respect to the maximum factor of each column of the table, as it is in the current version of the table. Instead, it could be better for the reader to see that the sum of all the factors of each column should give 1.0 (i.e. normalization). In this way the reader could  readily verify the normalized contribution of different narrow wavelength bands to the white LEDS of different temperatures.

3) The first value of Table 2 seems to be wrongly written: the error should be 0.015 and the average value  0.135.

4) The "5. Research aims" section could be also eliminated. In this case, the test of this section could be inserted as the first paragraph of the previous section (Discussion and Conclusion).

5) The reference to the figures in the main text should be made before the corresponding figure is displayed. Instead, it is done immediatly after. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

thank you for your helpful comements and see our reply in the file which is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf