Chemical Characteristics of Wood Cell Wall with an Emphasis on Ultrastructure: A Mini-Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review manuscript is interesting and useful but there are several issues to be improved. Here are some of the most significant ones towards the quality improvement.
In the first paragraph, significant detailed information are provided without providing the respective references in the text. You should make the necessary changes to comply with the format of the journal concerning the references presentation in text. In line 36, the hemicellulose and lignin have also the function of binding the cellulose microfibrils, they act like an adhesive (please highlight also this function). In line 38, the cell recalcitrance acts positively for the utilization of wood and negatively to the utilization of biomass as biofuels (please clarify this point). In line 39, instead of "woods", you rather use "timber" or "sawn wood" or "wood species". In table 1, as well as in the whole text, instead of hemicellulose, you rather use "hemicelluloses". In lines 57-76 there is only one reference. In line 94, you should change the word "of" to "on". In line 102, please provide a reference. In line 106, do you mean chemical treatment towards the isolation of cellulose? In table 2, did you take the whole table from a single article or you made a synthesis of different articles? In line 151, add a d in "compose". In 252, provide the chronology of the study. Approximately, in line 300, please add a brief comment on the denisty changes in compression/tension wood, since it is associated also to structure and chemistry of wood. In line 333, probably you should refer in the title what kind of pre-treatments you refer to. In 336, in the frame of which way of utilization ,which process? In 344, you rather use "that emphasizes on". Concerning the chemistry of hardwoods, I recommend the authors to incoporate significant relevant knowledge from the following article:
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2021.1888315. The figures of the manuscript are considered very useful to the reader. I would propose the authors to highlight the significance and necessity of this review paper preparation. In which direction this work findings could be utilized in the future etc. Please try to make some additions towards the clarification of the destructive (using powder/fibres) and non-destructive methods of wood chemical analysis. Chapter 9 could be named as Conclusions and perspectives.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is generally well-written, however, there some recommendations for possible improvements:
From the manuscript, characterization and quantitative tools seems to have significant weightage, would you please consider to reflect it in your title?
Please improve the abstract, some of the content in the manuscript was not mentioned here.
Line 62-63 – the sentence is hanging, please revise.
Table 2 – Please define CML. why there are two columns for CML, S1 and S2+S3? Please elaborate in text regarding the data displayed in Table 2.
Line 115-116, is the reference correct (ref. 6,7)? It is not tally to the reference shown in Table 3 (ref. 3) and Table 4 (ref. 4). Please check.
Line 139 – “The distribution of S2 was relatively uniform” – distribution of what?
Line 223-225, “The resulting water insoluble reaction product manganese dioxide (MnO2 ) is deposited on the ultrathin section visualising the reaction sites”, this sentence is vague, please revise.
Section 2-4 is good. Please summarize what is the main findings as a whole (cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in CML, S1, S2 and S3 for both hardwood and softwood).
Section 5 & 6 – lack of coherency with the previous sections, especially section 6. There are not mentioned in abstract and introduction. Kindly improve.
Table 5 – “Pretreatment methods from references emphasis on cell wall ultrastructural changes“, emphasis on cell wall ultrastructural changes, but no relevant info was found in the Table. Although it has been discussed in the text, I would like to suggest the authors to create a figure or mind chart to summarizes the ultrastructural changes caused by different pre-treatment methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments unfortunately have not been adequately and extensively addressed by the authors. They should check again one by one the comments and reccommendations, such as the following examples that have not even been included in the authors reply as comments:
- I would propose the authors to highlight the significance and necessity of this review paper preparation. In which direction this work findings could be utilized in the future etc. Please try to make some additions towards the clarification of the destructive (using powder/fibres) and non-destructive methods of wood chemical analysis.
-
Concerning the chemistry of hardwoods, I recommend the authors to incoporate significant relevant knowledge from the following article:
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2021.1888315.
- Approximately, in line 300, please add a brief comment on the denisty changes in compression/tension wood, since it is associated also to structure and chemistry of wood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken into consideration the comments and recommendations of the reviewer and significant improvement changes have been implemented. Concerning the last version of the manuscrit I could state that in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
