Unveiling Polychrome Printing Methods on Textiles: Preliminary Results from the Mariano Fortuny y Madrazo Collection in Venice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: heritage-2807299

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Study and characterization of the polychrome printing methods on Fortuny textiles by Mariano Fortuny y Madrazo (1871-1949)

 1. Recommendation:

Reconsider after major revisions

2. Comments to the authors:

 

2.1 Overview and general recommendation

This work presents a mulitanalytical investigation of some materials belonging to Fortuny's textile production. Particularly, paper prints and fabrics that today are conserved at the Fortuny Museum in Venice, Italy. The authors used both elemental and molecular techniques to study 10 samples and fragments from the printing production by Fortuny. The paper requires an extensive edition to correct the English, make clearer their statements, and facilitate the comprehension of the main result of this research. Unfortunately, the paper seems to be an unfinished version of the work, indeed the file still presents some annotations and comments from the authors some of which have raised some concerns regarding the scientific rigor of the work (I am hoping you are not "inventing" any conclusions as mention in one of the comments written in Italian). 

Some details on the experimental description are missing, and part of the results are not well supported by the results of the literature cited, this must be revised. Indeed, the number of self-citations is concerning (almost 20% of the references are associated with the last author), this must be taken into consideration by editors in the final decision.

The research has potential and indeed deep investigation into the technique for printing textiles could contribute to the general knowledge of textile production, therefore, I recommend reconsidering the paper after major revisions. I explain in detail my concerns here below.

2.2 Comments

The title of the paper should be revised, as you mentioned in the conclusion, the results you present are not conclusive but are an initial approximation to the printing methods. The way it is currently presented might be misleading.

-Page 1. Abstract: What is the difference between textile and fabric? Please revise these terms and use the most adequate. Please also revise English some commas are missing. You use the term "speculate", it is not an adequate term for a scientific publication, please revise.

You mention that 3 main pigments were used but you listed 4.

-Page 1. 1. Introduction, lines 29-33. A reference here is missing.

- Terms from foreign languages should go in italics, for example, pochoir and buratto. Please revise this through the text.

- Page 2. Please indicate the Patent numbers to make easier it to identify. This should be made through the text where the patents are mentioned. Also, Patents should be cited.

- Page 4. 2. Materials and Methods, Line 156. Mini-invasive might not be the most adequate term. Please revise.

- 2. Materials and Methods. It seems there is confusion between the sample and the object from which it comes. The code reported in Table 1 relates to the sample (a small piece of the object), while the description corresponds to the object. This should be corrected and made clearer. for example, it could be interesting to see the color of the sample analyzed, to have an idea of the palette studied in this work. Also, the spot analyses are associated with a single code, or does the code refer to the object where several spot analyses were performed? Please make this clearer. 

- Page 5, figure 4. Please add scale to the object photographs. Also, indicate the points or areas analyzed with the non-invasive techniques.

- Page 6. Bravo section. Please insert the size of the area investigated, and the parameters used in the analysis (scans and time). 

- DXRTM3 section. Indicate the objective you used and the technical specifications. Also indicate the spot size, the laser wavelength and power used, the number of scans, and integration time. Reference 13 might not be necessary here since you are just describing the experimental set-up used for this specific work and not a complex methodology developed and reported in previous work.

- XRF section. What do you mean by drop sample? Please explain. Be aware that punctual is not the correct English word, it is a literal translation from Italian, and the English word is spot. When reporting the current use mA instead of uA.

- GC-MS section. Decimals should be separated by point not comma. A single reference describing the methodology is enough instead of 6 references. For example, 14 is constantly referred to through the methodology description.

- Page 7. 3. Results, Line 243. There is a problem with the automatic reference system. An error warning appears. This happened also on pages 7, 8, 16, and 17. 

- Figure 5. It is not clear which images were obtained with a stereomicroscope and which with the DinoLite. The figure title should be placed immediately under the figure and not separate.

- Page 8. 3. Results, Lines 262-265. The correlation between Ca and Si in XRF results and talc does not seem well supported. Moreover, the reference cited does not mention talc in the results and does not go deep into the discussion of the correlation between calcium and gypsum as a filler. Please revise and or cite a more adequate reference.

- Also at the end of that paragraph you mention titanium oxide as a whitener, please support this with an adequate reference.

- Page 8, 3. Results, line 284.  How is obtained the map image? By integrating the total signal detected by the instrument and represented in a greyscale? Please explain since later you mention that " (the light areas) [...] suggesting the presence of higher Z element on the printed parts." Yet, Fe (Z=26) is present in black areas (not printed) while S (Z=16) is present with a higher concentration in grey areas (printed), this is contradictory. Please revise.

- Page 8. Figure 6. The scale bars are not visible and labels regarding the elements are hard to read. Please revise. Also, how are these images obtained? Integrating the area under a peak of a specific element or the intensity? Please explain this in the materials section.

- Figure 7. Please indicate the spectral feature you discuss on Page 9, it is very hard to follow the description and relate to the data you are reporting.

- Page 9. Lines 318-321. You are discussing some bands around 1010 cm^-1; however, in that spectral region cellulose from the paper support has very intense absorption bands, are you sure there are no residues from the support in your sample? Please specify.

- Page 9. Line 331-332. Previously you associated the band 1580 cm^-1 with Cu-based pigment degradation, but later you associated it with amide C-O stretching. Please revise this and show clearly the data regarding these two phenomena.

- Page 9. Line 334. You mentioned "The binder is probably of organic origin, [...]", what kind? The majority of binders are of organic origin.

- Page 10. Lines 345-346. The Raman bands reported in the spectra you show in Figure 8 do not seem to arise from graphite, but rather from amorphous carbon. Please revise. Also in Figure 8, there is an error with the sample code (576D). 

- You also mentioned the peak at 1086 cm^-1, I suppose you are referring to sample 567D? Please indicate in the spectra the features you are discussing in the text to make it easier for the reader.

- Page 13, 4.2 Polychrome fabrics, Lines 411-412. What do you mean by thick-wave base fabric? Plain wave? Please describe the structure. On the same page in line 418, do you refer to figure 10 or 11?

- Figure 12. Legends and scale bars are not visible. Please modify.

- Page 15. Lines 459-460. Since you are using a relatively new instrument (Bravo Raman) that uses an excitation line not very common yet (852 nm), I suggest you cite references that use the same instrument and that have investigated the same pigment, since different lasers can induce changes in the final spectrum.  

- Page 16. Table 3. Please indicate what "n.d." stands for in the table title or under it. 

- Also, I would suggest making a more detailed revision of the printing techniques employed for textiles, please revise the work by Dr. Hanna Elisabeth Helvig Martinsen, in her work she reports some materials that correspond to some of the materials you report in this work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be revised and corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

on Jan 17th, I wrote to the Editor the following mail (that you probably received from her)

We apologise for the misunderstanding: unfortunately, in the transfer of files in the final stage of internal revision/correction between authors, there must have been a file naming error and we sent you the non-final version. We are very sorry. This does not change anything in terms of results and interpretation, but it does affect the final appearance of the manuscript, the references and some misspelling errors, etc.
As for the comment in Italian where the word 'Inventare' is mentioned, please note that it was a sarcastic comment internos during the internal revision phase. Nothing was invented: it was a matter of describing the microscopic images of a specimen, images reported in the text.
Thank you for your attention and your patience. All the best, Francesca Izzo on the behalf of all authors 

Attached to this email, you will find a detailed response to all the revisions you made.

Thanks for your important inputs.

Francesca Izzo 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an interesting research work that investigated printing methods on paper and textiles patented by Mariano Fortuny at the beginning of the 20^th century in Venice, Italy. The scientific protocol applied is well-known and unfortunately it was not possible to apply all the techniques on every sample, but the results seem comprehensive enough. The interpretation of the few findings is convincing and the study can make new contributions to this field of study, which is poorly represented in scientific papers.

The paper is well written, and the objectives are well described. However, this is clearly not the final version of the manuscript and some mistakes are present, namely errors in the naming of the samples, some spelling and style errors, and many errors in the inclusion of figures in the word document. I urge the authors to carefully submit the corrected manuscript at the revision stage.

 

I recommend publication of the paper after the authors have considered the additional comments listed below.

 

1.      Figures 2-3: add a credit line if the image was taken from another publication.  

2.      Line 156: mini-invasive: mini is usually interpreted as tiny, do you mean ‘minimally’ or ‘micro’ invasive?

3.      Line 272: add reference.

4.      Lines 274-276: avoid mentioning malachite, as no further analysis has been done (or images shown) and it is no longer mentioned in the text.

5.      Figure 7: the caption is not complete/correct. Is the sample named 567 or 576? Please also correct in the next paragraph as appropriate.

6.      Lines 297-298: please be more specific about the bands associated with the paper.

7.      Lines 305-308: did you find Zn in the XRF spectra?

8.      Figure 8: Is the sample named 576 or 567?

9.      Lines 423-431: do the authors have any suggestions as to why a red colour contains Cu? Or do you think it is in the silk?

10.   Lines 447-449: the spectrum is cut between 1800 and 3000: the peak at 2088 cm-1 is not evident. Please add an image.

11.   Table 3: please, never make up the results. It is perfectly acceptable to have a blank line if the analysis has not been carried out, we all know what the problems are in carrying out in situ analysis with a Dinolite. That comment is unacceptable.

Please also check the results carefully, especially ultramarine (found on 234D) and Prussian blue (missing FTIR spectrum).  

12.   Line 484: which sample is this?

13.   Lines 510-517: do you have any suggestions on the blue pigment/dye used for the blue area? It is interesting that Prussian blue is only used for green. Also, is it possible that a yellow dye is mixed with Prussian blue to obtain the green, or do you think the colour is the superimposition of a blue on an orange? Do the images under the microscope (not shown here) show anything?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some spelling and style mistakes. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

On Jan 17th I wrote to the Editor the following email (that you probably received from her):

We apologise for the misunderstanding: unfortunately, in the transfer of files in the final stage of internal revision/correction between authors, there must have been a file naming error and we sent you the non-final version. We are very sorry. This does not change anything in terms of results and interpretation, but it does affect the final appearance of the manuscript, the references and some misspelling errors, etc.
As for the comment in Italian where the word 'Inventare' is mentioned, please note that it was a sarcastic comment internos during the internal revision phase. Nothing was invented: it was a matter of describing the microscopic images of a specimen, images reported in the text.
Thank you for your attention and your patience. All the best, Francesca Izzo on the behalf of all authors    I attach to this email the response to you valuable revisions. Thanks very much to help us improving our manuscript.   Best, Francesca Izzo 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for considering all the previous comments, and for clarifying the situation regarding the previous draft. I encourage them to revise thoroughly the proof before submitting a paper to make sure everything is fine.

The draft has been substantially improved and made clearer. However, some issues should be revised. For this reason, I recommend accepting it after some minor revisions. Here below I explain my concerns.

On page 1, line 45 you state that Fortuny invented screen printing, yet the technique existed before. Fortuny's invented the mechanical process (he invented the machine). Please specify this.

On page 3, line 87 it says "[...] needs to be rediscovered and publicized." I suggest using the word "disseminate" instead of publicized.

Page 4. Figure 2. Please explain in the caption what does A, B, Cm, and the numbers mean. You only explain 2A in the text but the other letters are not explained.

Page 5. Figure 3. Did you make this scheme or does it come from the patent? If you take it from elsewhere, please specify the source.

Page 6, line 226, and in other parts of the text, the word in situ is written in two forms "in situ" and "in-situ" use only one.

Page 7. line 234 and other parts of the text. You are using a dash (-) in cm^-1, you should use the hyphen-minus  "−" You might be asked to revise this during the proof reading.

Something similar for the time sign, you are using the x, you should use the times symbol. × 

Page 7, line 248. You should add a space between the number and the units. Also in the same paragraph you use commas to separate decimals, you should use points. Also in line 258.

Page 7, line 257. Do you mean 40 kV?

Page 8. Lines 306-307. "The optical microscope observation highlighted specific features [...]". Which ones? This phrase seems to be left alone, you describe the features in the paragraphs that follow this phrase, considering moving it or eliminating it. 

In different sections of the text you mention "XRF elemental analysis", XRF is always elemental so maybe you can remove elemental.

Page 13. Line 448. Do you mean peak 3672 instead of 367?

Page 14. Line 483. The correct notation is SO₄^2-

Page 14. Line 485. The spectra of ultramarine obtained with the Bravo instrumentation are indeed particular and sometimes from the spectra obtained with other Raman instruments, since you are not reporting any reference spectrum, consider using some references that report this, such as https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093560.  In the same paragraph in lines 487 and 488, you mention the addition of Cu-based pigment to make bluish the ultramarine. Did you mean greenish? Ultramarine is already blue.

Something similar regarding the reference to Prussian blue. You mention that Bravo is relatively new and it is true, yet there are already several publications regarding its application. Since you are not using any pigment reference spectra to support the data, you should use paper using the same system you used. For example, https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AN00753H or the paper I mentioned above.

Page 22. Line 621. Are you sure the weak band at 538 cm^-1 is from the pigment? It seems to be at the noise level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine, some minor revisions are needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

again thanks for you valuable revisions.

A detailed answer is attached to this message.

 

Best,

Francesca Izzo

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for addressing all my comments and for letting me know that they contacted the Editors about the wrong paper being submitted. I was not made aware of this.

The change of order of the authors might need to be explained to the Editors at this stage.

No further comments from me. Thank you. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

thanks for your valuable help in the revision of our work.

 

Best, 

Francesca Izzo