Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is appropriate for the journal. This is without a doubt a very interesting manuscript, it has many qualities. However, I believe it has some problems. My suggestions are listed below:

• The introduction has been well written and includes the latest literature. I suggest writing about the ecological aspects of your treatments in the introduction part.
• The novelty is not well highlighted in your paper. You can highlight the novelty of your research compared to previous research studies.
• Are you considering and calculating spring back or set recovery?
• Line 134-135: What are the losses that occur during the processing? Explain specifically. Furthermore, why are there less samples at CR 60% compared to 65%? Does damage occur more frequently at CR 60%?
• Can you statistically generate a correlation table between the treatment factors you used and bending performance?
• In your opinion, which treatment is best for poplar wood? And can your treatment be applied to other wood species?
• The research has practical implications for protecting wood. Are these treatments cost effective and feasible for large-scale application in the wood industry?
• What are the potential challenges in applying these methods to commercially available wood products?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Bending properties of thermohydromechanically densified poplar wood. The effect of ultrasonic pretreatment and thermal post-treatment at various compression ratios.

 

Abstract

A description of the rationale for the study and the basic methodological assumptions are presented. The influence of ultrasound and thermal treatment on wood compression is indicated.

Strength tests are confirmed as an indicator of the effect of compression on improving wood properties.

More comprehensive information on the research methodology was lacking. Were the tests supported by standardized studies, or were the change parameters referenced to a specific test model?

The results do not indicate the extent of the change in MOR and MOE for the tested samples.

 

Keywords

It is unnecessary to repeat the vocabulary contained in the article's title.

 

Introduction

Information about poplar wood and its potential worldwide and in Serbia is presented. Parameters contributing to the improvement of the strength properties of modified wood are indicated.

Numerous studies of wood compression on the effect of wood properties are indicated. The impact of new ultrasonic methods on improving wood properties during modification processes is demonstrated.

The introduction is linked to the literature and the research question is presented: do preparatory treatments improve properties beyond density-dependent effects and does their impact depend on the degree of compression?

The stated research objective is imprecise. The description, i.e., filling the research gap necessary to improve the efficiency and reliability of densification-based modification strategies for low-density hardwoods, appears incomplete. There is no indication of which levels of research constitute novelty in terms of research innovation.

 

Materials and Methods

The origin of the research material is well described.

Average density values ​​for the tested material are provided.

Precise data on statistical changes in the research material are lacking due to its diversity in origin across the log cross-section and possible differences between individual poplar logs.

 

It was suggested that the research material be adapted to the requirements of average values; what were the density gradients? The remaining methodology for selecting reference and test samples for sonic testing raises no objections. Both thermo-hydromechanical compaction and the isolated thermal compaction also describe the scope of the tests, indicating the degree of compaction. The test methodology is presented in accordance with the EN 310:1993 standard. A schematic presentation of tests compliant with the indicated standard or related standards is missing.

 

Results

The compression ratio and density and moisture measurements are provided. The effect of density change on the MOE and MOR values ​​was assessed. Density change affects the change in strength, confirming the known trend.

There was no stronger indication of the significance level of the obtained test results. The authors can better utilize their research results to compare the effects of wood densification methods and grades on MOE and MOR values.

 

Discussion

A comparison of the research results with the international literature is presented. The influence of wood preparation factors and structural damage on its susceptibility to deformation and stress transfer is indicated.

The results and literature could be better aligned with the level of significance of the results. The analysis of data from the international literature is an important issue; this seems too terse. The review requires significant expansion and cross-referencing with the literature and studies by other authors.

 

Conclusions

 

The conclusions are consistent with the research results.

 

The strength change indicators are indicated depending on the sample preparation method for densification.

 

Data on the degree of strength increase upon densification and the degree of increase in densification inputs are missing.

 

The results regarding pretreatment do not include values ​​for the change in MOE and MOR parameters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf