Comparative Adhesive Bonding of Wood Chemically Modified with Either Acetic Anhydride or Butylene Oxide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interseting and well presented piece of research. I have only a small number of very minor grammatical/typo suggestions that the authors might like to address, as follows;

Figure 2 - The resolution of the image seems a little poor for my copy. The authors may like to address this if possible.

Line 76  "a hydroxyethers"  - either make the hyroxyethers singular or emove the "a"

Line 81 reduced rather than reduce

Line 82 Compared rather than comparted

Line 99  Should ther be an "are" between which and preliminary?

Line 143 were not was

Line 150 Can the authors reference or provide the data for the earlier test? - this would be interesting to see and should be added as supplmental data rather than in  the main text.

Line 231 grain rather than gain

Line 299 Strain rather than stain

Author Response

This is an interseting and well presented piece of research. I have only a small number of very minor grammatical/typo suggestions that the authors might like to address, as follows;

We appreciate the review’s time and effort to examine this manuscript. The comments will help make this a better paper.

Figure 2 - The resolution of the image seems a little poor for my copy. The authors may like to address this if possible.

We at present cannot make a better drawing with our available resources. We have been unable to find the original drawing.

Line 76 "a hydroxyethers" - either make the hyroxyethers singular or emove the "a"

Thank you for pointing this out and we have used the plural.

Line 81 reduced rather than reduce

We have made the correction.

Line 82 Compared rather than comparted

Sorry that I did not check closely enough which word the spelling checker inserted.

Line 99 Should ther be an "are" between which and preliminary?

Thank you for pointing this out.

Line 143 were not was

Left unchanged since effectiveness is a singular noun.

Line 150 Can the authors reference or provide the data for the earlier test? - this would be interesting to see and should be added as supplmental data rather than in the main text.

Unfortunately, this information was obtained by a preliminary set of samples done about 19 years ago that we used to set up the protocol, and the data was not saved.

Line 231 grain rather than gain

Thank you for catching the error that has been fixed.

Line 299 Strain rather than stain

We appreciate your close reading to catch the error that has been fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

It is an interesting, well-prepared manuscript on the current topic, in particular for the development of knowledge of chemical modified wood. The topic is in the field of wood science, less in the field of forestry.

I propose some additions and corrections before publishing the manuscript and I present these proposed changes in a synthetic form:

Line 18 (Abstract):
The Latin name of yellow poplar should be added: ... modification on yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.):

Please consider the use of the nomenclature of wood species according to EN 13556:2003 Round and sawn timber – Nomenclature of timbers used in Europe. (lines 156, 238, 354 and captions under Figures 5, 6, and 7)

American “yellow poplar” = English “American whitewood”

Line 29 (Keywords):
The name of the tested wood should be added: Liriodendron tulipifera

From line 33 to line 264
Editing note: the text in the following paragraphs should be aligned (justified) to both edges.

Chapter 2.1.2
Due to the nature of the Forest magazine, it would be advisable to provide more information about the wood (lumber): origin (from which forest, from which region, from trees at what age, from what part of the trunk). Perhaps this data is obtainable. It is important to provide the wood density too (from the point of view of the research). Wood density of Liriodendron tulipifera has a significant influence on the modification processes, water absorption, and shear strength (especially when the shearing is through the wood and not the glue joint). Taking into account the nature of the research, it would be most appropriate to give the density of absolutely dry wood.

Figure 5 and 6 and 7
On the right axis, the units should be corrected. There is Mpa and it should be MPa

Lines 282, 283
In my opinion, the accuracy of the shear strength results is too low. The results should be given with an accuracy of 0.1 MPa

Figure 8
Editing note: too large font size in the figure caption

Lines 351 and 352 (Conclusions)
The first sentence of the Conclusions does not result from the conducted research and should be deleted.

References
Editing note: works on the list are double-numbered - this should be corrected

Author Response

It is an interesting, well-prepared manuscript on the current topic, in particular for the development of knowledge of chemical modified wood. The topic is in the field of wood science, less in the field of forestry.

You have a valid point, but I was solicited by a special issue editor for a manuscript on modified wood properties, who understood our area of research.

I propose some additions and corrections before publishing the manuscript and I present these proposed changes in a synthetic form:

We appreciate your careful reading of the paper and your recommendation on the corrections to improve the quality of the paper.

Line 18 (Abstract):
The Latin name of yellow poplar should be added: ... modification on yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.):

Please consider the use of the nomenclature of wood species according to EN 13556:2003 Round and sawn timber – Nomenclature of timbers used in Europe. (lines 156, 238, 354 and captions under Figures 5, 6, and 7)

American “yellow poplar” = English “American whitewood”

You have a very valid point in that common names can be very misleading since in different countries the same name can apply to different species or different names can apply to one species. I do not have the EN standard, but looking up in the US Forest Service Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) the name was changed from yellow poplar on 11 June 2018 to tulip tree, https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/lirtul/all.html. I have added the information to clarify the species identification in the materials section.

Line 29 (Keywords):
The name of the tested wood should be added: Liriodendron tulipifera

Done

From line 33 to line 264
Editing note: the text in the following paragraphs should be aligned (justified) to both edges.

Done

Chapter 2.1.2
Due to the nature of the Forest magazine, it would be advisable to provide more information about the wood (lumber): origin (from which forest, from which region, from trees at what age, from what part of the trunk). Perhaps this data is obtainable. It is important to provide the wood density too (from the point of view of the research). Wood density of Liriodendron tulipifera has a significant influence on the modification processes, water absorption, and shear strength (especially when the shearing is through the wood and not the glue joint). Taking into account the nature of the research, it would be most appropriate to give the density of absolutely dry wood.

The reviewer has made some good points; however, this information is not normally done since the wood is commercially obtained and the individual source is not known. We should have obtained the average density for the wood before treatment, but we did not. Since this work was done a number of years ago, we no longer have pieces for measurement. The delay in publication was due to our reluctance in publishing until we could provide the best scientific explanation of the results. There are still some data that we cannot fully explain, but we wanted to publish what we understood. Maybe someday someone will more fully understand all the aspects that control bond strength.

You are correct that in future studies, we should pay more attention to the density differences in addition to the uniformity and direction of the grain and lack of observable defects.

Figure 5 and 6 and 7
On the right axis, the units should be corrected. There is Mpa and it should be MPa

Thanks for noting our error and the changes have been made.

Lines 282, 283
In my opinion, the accuracy of the shear strength results is too low. The results should be given with an accuracy of 0.1 MPa

After carefully examining the cited sentences, we are a bit confused by your comment. Certainly the raw numbers are measured to greater precision, but we are reluctant to cite to a greater precision just knowing the variability of wood. We believe that it is easier on the reader to compare 11 MPa and 4 MPa than it is 11.2 versus 4.0.

Figure 8
Editing note: too large font size in the figure caption

Thank you for the sharp eye to notice the type difference, which has been corrected.

Lines 351 and 352 (Conclusions)
The first sentence of the Conclusions does not result from the conducted research and should be deleted.

Reduced to a short phrase.

References
Editing note: works on the list are double-numbered - this should be corrected

Done, thank you for pointing this out. I am still mystified on EndNote did this.