Comparative Studies on Tensile Mechanical Properties of Water-Saturated Earlywood and Latewood within the Same Growth Ring from Masson Pine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article „Comparative Studies on Tensile Mechanical Properties of Water-saturated Earlywood and Latewood within the Same Growth Ring from Masson Pine” describes research on the mechanical properties of Masson Pine’s early- and latewood under saturated conditions at different temperatures. The study falls within basic knowledge in the wood science area and is important for better understanding the properties of complex wood tissue.

The study was well-designed and performed carefully. Methods and results are described clearly. However, more details could be supplemented for readers to understand the text better. I would also suggest adding scientific discussion about the differences observed between parameters measured for EW and LW, making the paper even more attractive for a broader audience of scientists.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, and we feel great appreciate for your professional and constructive comments and suggestions. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your comments, we have tried our best to revise our previous manuscript and provided the point-by-point responses. The corresponding revisions/corrections were highlighted in different colors in the re-submitted manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors focus on a scientifically interesting problematics, namely tensile properties of water-saturated earlywood and latewood of a selected pine species. The goal is primarily to determine the parameters in tension along the fibers, and also in the tangential direction. Deflection angle of microfibrils is also measured at selected temperatures. The article is a suitable contribution to the given special issue.

I have a few comments on a review and then rather personal considerations and observations.

The statement at the end of the abstract, introduction and conclusions needs to be clearly specified more, at least in the conclusion! It is very difficult for the reader to estimate the possible practical use of the knowledge based on your experiments. Personally, I see the importance basically only for hydrothermal wood treatment processes. It would be much more interesting to compare these parameters for "normal wood" and "compression wood", with regard to the significant difference in the deflection angle of the microfibrils and thus the significant influence on any properties, including parameters during tensile stress. In your particular case, I consider the determination of MFA to be almost unnecessary, because I see the main significance rather at the level of the chemical composition of EW and LW.

With regard to the emphasis placed on the "scientific" nature of the outputs, I understand the lower number of measurements, but for this reason the actual values are not important, but rather only the percentage decrease or increase of the observed quantities, which, however, you ultimately took into account in the conclusions.

​What I consider as positive is the use of X-ray diffractometer and especially dynamic mechanical analyzer. As negative I consider the absence of any picture on the micro or preferably sub-micro level of wood anatomy! I recommend to consider its (their) inclusion and even with regard to reader engagement. I don't assume that you didn't take these images as part of your research; see, for example, the information from literature on lines 122 to 124.

I consider the comparison of your results with the data from the literature on lines 213 to 215 as irrelevant with respect to temperature differences up to and high above 100 °C. And for the influence with respect to the chemical composition it can be applied "doubly". I recommend to consider a logical reformulation.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, and we feel great appreciate for your professional and constructive comments and suggestions. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your comments, we have tried our best to revise our previous manuscript and provided the point-by-point responses. The corresponding revisions/corrections were highlighted in different colors in the re-submitted manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been corrected and supplemented. I can recommend it now for publishing.