Natural Weathering of Bio-Based Façade Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 56-57. When indicating that most of the materials were treated with some preparations, is it natural or modified wood? Or was acetylated or thermal treated wood impregnated? Please specify what type of materials has been impregnated.

Table 1 is difficult to read. It is difficult to know where the next line begins and ends. It is difficult to match the modification technology to the type of sample.

Lines 56, 66, 92. Why is the error highlighted and no source shown?

There are no citations in whole text Figures and Tables. Instead, it appears “Error! Reference source not found”, which hinders good reception of work content.

Were colour measurements always taken at the same place of the sample? Was this place somehow marked? Was it chosen properly? Or was the measurement carried out on the entire surface of the samples?

Line 99-100. In the text it is written that the lowest and highest temperature was -17.5 and 34.2 in 2017. Figure 3 shows, however, that the maximum temperature above 30 degrees was recorded in 2018. Similarly with the lowest, where in 2018 a temperature close to -20 degrees was recorded three times. The description of temperatures from 2018 (lines 100, 101) also does not correspond to the data from Figure 3.

Line 121. Why is the colour change discussed on the basis of 10 samples? This represents just 8% of all samples. Are these samples randomly selected or representative?

Did Figure 5 (b) show photos of one control at different months of the experiment? If so, it should be described differently in both the text and the description of the figure. Similarly 5 (d).

Lines 126, 127. Why do the names of the materials used suddenly appear in the results of the colour changes? They were not described in detail in the experimental material chapter, they were only described in the table in general as acetylated material. Is the description of Accoya products now necessary? Shouldn't be preceded by a description of these materials?

Chapter 3.3. The results presented in this chapter are not fully understood. How was Figure 6 prepared? What kind of surface checks were these?

In the Discussion chapter, the authors present different values of color change in different samples. It is difficult to read the differences given by the authors when it is not possible to see these results in tables or charts. For example, in line 155 it is stated that the color difference for TM spruce was 7U / M, while in Figure 5 only Spruce TM + coated was presented. Similar observations apply, e.g. to information from lines 158-160, where many methods of impregnation are given, saying that color degradation was higher.

In line 168-171. The color change results of the Kebony material have been described and compared, the results of which have not been presented before in the paper. It would be worth describing in the discussion the materials characterized earlier and presented in the results.

In general, the discussion chapter should be based on the results presented in the Results chapter. In many places of discussion you can see the numerical values of the colour change (ΔE), which were not presented anywhere in the publication. Similarly with details of individual materials. When they were omitted in the methodology chapter, is it worth describing them in detail in the discussion?

In References, many references have been incorrectly cited. Reference 15, on the basis of which Table 1 was prepared, is this a doctoral dissertation or an expert opinion?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

On line 92 and several others the statement (Error:Reference source not found) is made and it is not clear what this means.

Line 151- Identify what  Delta/M represents

Line 274 Make corrections

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Why is it only used the guidelines COST FP1303 and not the EN and ISO standards useful (at least partially) for the preparation of the samples, for the procedure, for the control methods and for the terminology?

Which was the method of application of surface products? How was the uniformity of application and thickness of the product assessed?

Have the response differences in the three different anatomical sections of the different species of wood been assessed?

Row 58 and 59: do not specified (or not clear) the characteristics of "Knitten", "Madurit" and "Fixapret". Please specify.

Fig.4 and Tab.5 Are difficult to read (too small).

Term “check” is used for "shrinkage" - "fissure"?

Row 144: better "untreated" or "uncoated" than "unmodified".

Row 145: erase “;”

Riga 166: with… who? It’s necessary the author name;

Is it fair to conclude by saying that x and y brands are the best? Better to refer to the product characteristics and not to the brand.

The COST guideline is not mentioned in the references.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for taking into account my comments, greetings and good luck.

Author Response

Thank you.