The Impact of Vinylotrimethoxysilane-Modified Linseed Oil on Selected Properties of Impregnated Wood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with examination of the effect of specific linseed oil parameters on wood usability properties when modified with organosilicon compounds, and carrying out experimental investigation. The paper is organized and logic. Experiments are rational. The obtained results from the paper are helpful for development of eco-friendly impregnation production for wood protection. On the hand, modification is needed before publication. The obtained results from the paper are helpful for development of eco-friendly impregnation production for wood protection. Below are my suggestions for the modification.

First the authors should collect more literatures about researches of VTMOS, Linseed Oil and wood protection from different areas. For example, the origin of linseed oil is Middle East and it has about five thousand years and is traditionally used for wood protection in Asian for more than a thousand years. That would be useful to show the paper significance and necessity.

Second, the authors need to make a summary for the comparing among the tested investigated products based on testing parameters and presenting the potentials of each of the four products in application to wood protection.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for every comment, which made us revise the article and improve its quality. Point-by-point responses to all the comments can be found in the file. All changes are moreover highlighted within the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Please find the attachment which including all my suggestions and comments on this manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for every comment, which made us revise the article and improve its quality. Point-by-point responses to all the comments can be found in file. All changes are moreover highlighted within the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study has good scientific merit; however, it requires extensive modification. Please find my comments below:

 

Materials and Methods

The whole materials and methods section can be improved by providing more detailed info.

Line 116 – modifid – should be modified

Line 122 – please define ŋ

Line 130 – 18 x 30 x 30 mm – please mention which one is length, width and thickness

Line 134 – so what is the Relative humidity (RH) in the desiccator?

Line 138 – Steam absorption or vapor absorption? Please use consistently.

Line 141 – here you used water absorption. Please use consistently

Line 145 – the test sounds more like water absorption test, please confirm.

Line 147 – 20 x 75 x 150 mm, same comment with line 130.

Line 149 – ‘200g (±20g)/m2 of the preparations…” what preparations? Please clarify?

Line 155 – “50° ± 2C” – please revise the unit

Line 192 – the three fungi used are soft rot fungi, is it? Are they molds? Please confirm

 

Results and discussion

The whole section is not properly discussed. References are not sufficient. More discussion of what is the effect of VTMOS in improving the properties tested is needed.

Line 227 – “ a growth in the volume of volatile substances at the temperature of 125°C” are you sure? I saw from Figure 1 that VOC at 125 °C decreased. Please clarify.

Line 237 – “…desired effect as it increases the depth of penetration…” do you have any image to support this? Or oil uptake percentage?

Section 3.3 – please briefly discuss why such observation was made? I think the oil uptake data is very important in this study.

Line 278-280 – any references?

Line 310-311 – “during subsequent 5 weeks, the color did not change significantly.” Is it? From Figure 8, the ΔE between week 1 and week 6 is very much different, please confirm

Section 3.4 – More discussion is needed. For example, how is the aging affect the wood colour and how is the impregnation treatment provide protected to the wood etc.

Line 323 – “Leaching significantly….” Do you have data regarding this, or it’s just speculation?

 

Line 338 – “ how active C. puteana is” it’s not about how active the fungus is, it’s about the wood samples has low durability against decay, please revise.

The references used in this manuscript is insufficient. Please add. Please refer to this review paper and finds suitable references:

Lee, S.H., Ashaari, Z., Lum, W.C., Halip, J.A., Ang, A.F., Tan, L.P., Chin, K.L. and Tahir, P.M., 2018. Thermal treatment of wood using vegetable oils: A review. Construction and Building Materials, 181, pp.408-419.

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for every comment, which made us revise the article and improve its quality. Point-by-point responses to all the comments can be found in file. All changes are moreover highlighted within the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear  authors

The manuscript had been modified too mucm, but some details on spelling and writting should be double checked. Hope you get success on this topic.

 

Author Response

Authors would like to thank you for critical work. Tekst of article was checked.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved. However, I am not quite satisfied with the results and discussion part. As I mentioned before, it requires a more in-depth discussion. Explain the results and discuss, compare with relevant studies.

The whole manuscript has 22 references, which all of them are in Introduction. Only 1 reference appear in the results and discussion section. Please improve. It is a good study, but the authors need to write it in a more scientific way rather than a technical report.

Author Response

Authors would like to thank you for critical work. The results and discussion section was extended by literature discussionand compared with relevant studies. Four new relevant literature possitions were added to manuscript.