Stealing from Phytotherapy—Heritage Conservation with Essential Oils: A Review, from Remedy to Sustainable Restoration Product
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Stealing from phytotherapy - heritage conservation with essential oils: a review, from remedy to sustainable restoration product” authored by Reale and co-workers is valuable and quite innovative. However, before it can be considered for publication, I suggest some revisions.
Is this a narrative review? The type of review should be mentioned in the title, in the abstract, and at the end of the Introduction.
The results and conclusions of your review need to be clearly mentioned in the Abstract.
Lines 32-38: References are missing.
Line 57: Something is wrong with your references. How do you jump from reference number 9 to 62? You should not have 53 references for this statement.
Lines 65-69: This should not be here. These are methodologies. At the end of the Introduction should be provided the goals of the paper. The Methodologies sections should be included, specifying how the authors conducted this research, and the established criteria for their search.
An extended background should be provided in the Introduction section.
Line 177: “antimicrobic activity” is not correct. Please revise it. You need to double-check the English language of whole the text.
Please, improve the quality of your figures, particularly Figure 3.
At the end of section 6, please indicate some directions for future investigations.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the 'Response to Reviewer 1' attachment and the new version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The review is interesting and comprehensive however there is a gap in mentioning specific results for cases on the application of cultural heritage materials (stone, mural paintings, wood, paper,…). More, adding a table that summarizes the main Eos used in the field is recommended. Authors stated that plant derived compounds can be used as repellents but no examples were given to illustrate this hypothesis. Also, the review needs some illustrations to show the positive effect of the EOs in disinfection of damaged outdoor monuments.
Author Response
Please see the 'Response to Reviewer 2' attachment and the new version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI'm satisfied with the answers provided by the authors as well as the revisions made in the original version of the manuscript.
