Next Article in Journal
The Detection of Railheads: An Innovative Direct Image Processing Method
Next Article in Special Issue
The Use of Phosphonates to Inhibit Salt Crystallization: A Laboratory Study for the Sustainable Conservation of Mural Paintings in the Hypogea Context
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Public Space in Building the Resilience of Cities: Analysis of Representative Projects from IFLA Europe Exhibitions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Investigations to Study the Materials and Degradation Issues of the Urban Mural Painting Ama Il Tuo Sogno by Jorit Agoch
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Stealing from Phytotherapy—Heritage Conservation with Essential Oils: A Review, from Remedy to Sustainable Restoration Product

Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5110; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125110
by Rita Reale 1, Laura Medeghini 2,3 and Michela Botticelli 4,5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5110; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125110
Submission received: 11 May 2024 / Revised: 9 June 2024 / Accepted: 12 June 2024 / Published: 15 June 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The 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 Language

Moderate 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 Authors

I'm satisfied with the answers provided by the authors as well as the revisions made in the original version of the manuscript. 

Back to TopTop