Manufacturing and Testing the Panels with a Transverse Texture Obtained from Branches of Norway Spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors wrote an interesting article that can potentially bridge some knowledge gaps in wood composite manufacturing. However, this manuscript requires substantial modification before being publishable. 

(1) Introduction does not point out the knowledge gap, and the novelty of the work is unclear.

(2) The hypothesis for the research experiment is nonexistent.

(3) Materials and Methods are too long, including unnecessary information. Please reduce it by at least 25%.

(4) Results and Discussion should be summarized. Please reduce it by at least 25%. Moreover, the discussion should include reasons and justifications for the research findings and compare the present results to the former related literature. Please do not iterate the results in the discussion part, and avoid putting tables and figures unless necessary.

(5) Conclusions must include the research limitations and make recommendations for future studies. Besides conclusion should not resemble the abstract. It should focus on the deliverables and implications of the research.

Author Response

All answers are presented in the word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is well written, but somewhere very detailed. Several notes are:

line 58: standard EN 13353:2008 is old and was was superseded by EN 13353:2022, please correct everywhere;

line 97: this standard D CEN/TS 13354:2003 is old version and this was superseded by EN 13354:2008, please correct everywhere and both in the list of references;

line 388, Table 4: Except 5% is probably lower 5 percentile value. But this value is counted incorrectly, the correct value is 2.58 N/mm². This value is still over the standard requirement 2.50 N/mm².

Author Response

The answers were in the word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The answers were found in the word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the article is satisfactory and can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

The new version of the manuscript brought many improvements to the research, including in the field of research results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Second revision of the manuscript entitled “Manufacturing and testing the panels with a

transverse texture obtained from branches of Norway Spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.)”

The comments and suggestions I made in a previous revision were not fully accomplished. In

fact, only 43 % of my comments and suggestions were fully included in this new version and

other 25 % of the comments were only partially included. In my opinion, this improvement is

not enough, and the new version of the document is therefore not still acceptable for

publication. In the next paragraphs I include the weak points I continue detecting in this study, with some additional explanations in italics. The line numbering corresponds to the original version of the

manuscript.

1. Line 16: the value 693 es remarkably high for spruce. In the rest of the document the values of density are also suspiciously high (for instance, line 336 and table 5). Please, indicate clearly what do you mean when you write “density”.

Authors response: We defined the “density” term and explain this high value. The high value of the density is given by the increased density of the wood from the branches (compression wood), the glue used for gluing and the pressure exerted when obtaining the panels.

2. If the expected use is indoor furniture, why did you not test the panel hardness? Hardness is a very valuable property of wood for furniture.

Authors response:  Of course, there are many other characteristics of the panels used for indoor conditions, more or less important, such as compression resistance, Janka and Brinell hardness, wear, resilience index, etc. At this stage of the research, the authors considered that the presented tests are sufficient for the definition of this panel, but they do not exclude that in the future they will also carry out the test recommended by the reviewer.

3. Line 22: Remove terms used in the title.

Authors response:  The term “traverse-structured panel” was erased because this was also presented in title.

4. Line 57: The EN 13353:2008 standard refers to solid wood panels but some of the mentioned products (MDF, OSB) are not. (See EN 12775 standard)

Authors response: Two new European standards for OSB and particleboard were added on line 61. 

5. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11: The left margin of the tables is not the same than that for the text. Please review the journal formatting requirements.

Authors response: Since there are tables with different widths, they could not be aligned with the text of the work. In fact, if we look in the journal “template”, we will find in Table 2 the accepted situation existing in the paper, that is, of exceeding the writing area to the left margin.

6. Tables 3-10: Please do not include all the experimental values obtained. The tables are more easy to examine if only the descriptive statistics are yielded (mean, maximum, minimum, coefficient of variation instead of standard deviation), being the experimental values omitted or moved to annexes.

Authors response: -All experimental values were erased, remaining only statistical values. -The coefficient of variation was introduced under the name “Variance” (with the necessary adding in the statistical method).  

7. Figure 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13: The left margin of the figures is not the same than that for the text.

Authors response: Since there were figures with different widths, they could not be aligned with the text of the paper. Moreover, if we look in the journal template, we will find in Fig. 2 the accepted situation existing in the work, that is, of exceeding the writing area to the left margin.

8. Figure 1a: The 6 stage is omitt Correct the term “glueng”.

Authors response: There were recounted. It changed to "gluing".

9. Table 2: Some standard information has moved to the last column.

Authors response: They were repositioned.  

10. Line 148: Please include the unit without abbreviation.

Authors response: The requested elements were resolved. 1 and 3 were replaced with “one” and “three”.

11. Lines 160, 164, 165, 167, 261, 271, 390,…: In this sentence and in the rest of the document you use “samples” (the group of tested specimens) when you should use “specimens” (each of the tested pieces). Please use the term “specimens” when you refer to an individual piece.

Authors response: The necessary changes were made in the new version of paper.

12. Figure 3: Please remove the shadowing of the texts in the left figure. Where is the force F

applied? What are the units?

Authors response: Fig 3.b shows the position of the sample during the compression test, observing how the force acts from the upper part. The unit of measure as well as the calculation relationship is given in the methodology area.

13. Line 174 : It is repeated excessively the nature of the panels and the origin of the wood in the tree. I think it is only necessary to detail that for the first time, naming the material just as “panels” for the rest of the document.

Authors response: Taking into account this remark, the presentation of the test has been significantly simplified.

14. Figure 5: Please include the location of b and l.

Authors response: Some additions were done. The figure has not been completed in order not to load it excessively, but the addition made in the legend completes the required data.

15. Lines 228 and 231: I am not sure about the nature of the mechanical test: compression or shearing? Which one is the shearing test: that in figure 5 or in figure 6?

Authors response: Some modifications were made. Explanation: Shearing strength was made by compression.  

16. Line 245 and 246: What are the 6 veneered chipboard specimens made for?

Authors response: We add: For comparison. 

17. Line 256: According to figure 6, the value is 30 mm instead of 50 mm.

Authors response: This value was removed and put the correct value.

18. Line 301: En 322 standard is devoted to moisture measuring and not to density calculation.

Authors response: The necessary change was made. EN 323.

19. Lines 337-340: All this material is repeated several times in the document. I fell it could be

mentioned once at the beginning of the chapter.

Authors response: These sentences were reduced in the mentioned zone.

20. Line 343: This procedure is not clear enough for me. What are the removed values for the mean calculation? The highest ones? The lowest ones? I think it is enough to refer to the mean confidence interval at 5 % signification level.

Authors response: We add in the statistical paragraph: This procedure is a statistical procedure based on the EN 326-1 and BS 2846: 1981 standards, which calculates the upper quantile of this value (excluding 5% of the values) according to the arithmetic mean, standard deviation and student t distribution with n +1 degrees of freedom. “n” represents the number of attempts of the respective test.

21. Line 348-350: It is well known that this type of adhesive is not water-resistant. I suggest the reference to this type of adhesive in all the document.

Authors response: Some references were added.

22. Figure 9: Pease remove marks around the three diagrams and use the same format for all.

Authors response: New all diagrams have the same format.

23. Table 3: Do not use the comma to separate decimal numbers. Use the same number of decimals in each column. The profile would benefit from being graphically showed.

Authors response: This problem was resolved. Only, the lower values of variance must have a large number of decimals, otherwise, many values would have zero values.

24. Some tables are cut between pages.

Authors response: The new version has all table in its entirety, without being divided, because each parameter has distinguished superior/inferior lines.

25. The test time in seconds is showed but it is not used in the discussion. I think it could be removed.

Authors response: The breaking time is introduced in discussion.

26. Figure 10. I do not understand the purpose of these series of data. The descriptive statistics

(mean, standard deviation,…) or/and a bar diagram would be more useful. The linear equations do not make sense.

Authors response: A figure with two bars would have been very simple. Also, this figure 10, through the two regression lines, shows the difference between the two resistances, but especially the proportionality between them. Please accept this form.

27. Line 400: Which one was the moisture content of the specimens after 24 h immersion?

Authors response: The moisture content obtained after 24 h immersion has not been determined, but it was close to the maximum moisture content of branches spruce wood, i.e., over 120%. 

28. Line 421: Please replace parameter with predictor variable and variabile with predicted variable.

Authors response: The modification was made.

29. Lines 430 to 434. Figure 11a and 11c: It is too risky to consider a decreasing branch of the model base only on one point.

Authors response: All three graphs in Fig. 11 were made for 11 points of influence, from which 6 value of panels.

30. Tables 8, 9: Pease define the abbreviations in headings.

Authors response: The abbreviation was defined in heading of table.

31. Lines 498 to 510: all this material corresponds to the discussion.

Authors response: This material was moved to the discussion chapter.

32. Table 10. Please define SD and explain what values are omitted in the 5 %.

Authors response: SD was explained in legend of table and Except 5% in the statistical paragraph.

33. Line 561: Please explain which one is the old method and the new one.

Authors response: This difference was explained in the method chapter.

34. Line 586-590. Please move at the end of the conclusions chapter.

Authors response: The uses of the panels are anyway close to the conclusions. These refer to the last figure, which is why I could not move this paragraph to the conclusions chapter.

35. The use of English must be improved.

Authors response: An English teacher specialized in technical translations has reviewed the grammatical structures and words used in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx