Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

 

In 30-31: What does “exceptional characteristics” mean?

Are figures 1 and 2 elaborated from the authors?

 

Methodology

 

Why don't the Scopus and Web of Science databases used in the analysis?

Was the methodology previously used in similar works? These points must be discussed.

An analysis that considers indicators such as countries with the highest number of publications, the main authors investigating the subject, and the trends of increasing or decreasing work published by year, provides useful information. The VosViewer software is a good program to use.

 

Results and discussions

 

Item 3.1.1: A correlation between the density of bamboo specimens and the resulting products must be made 

In 363, the authors comment that “tended to exhibit higher durability performance”. Quantitative information regarding this kind of assumption is important, and its performance is related to durability, considering which degradation parameters (such as freezing, corrosion, and microbiological) affect it.

 

Conclusion and Recommendation for Future Research

 

I think the conclusion must be presented before Future research needs.

I think this point must be well discussed, focusing on the bibliometric revision results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Please find our detailed responses to your remarks in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is the reviewer's opinion that it could be useful to include the standards used to conduct the mechanical tests. Mechanical properties from various studies are compared without consistently mentioning test standards, load directions, or environmental conditions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and detailed evaluation of our manuscript. Please find our point-by-point responses in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript provides a comprehensive and systematic review of engineered bamboo products—specifically bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo—with a focus on their mechanical properties, processing techniques, durability, and potential for sustainable construction. The paper synthesizes data from a broad range of recent sources and effectively compares manufacturing approaches, mechanical performance, and adhesive systems, ultimately identifying research gaps and making recommendations for standardization and future studies. The topic is timely and highly relevant to the field of sustainable construction materials.

1. While the review provides a wealth of data and summarizes many studies, at times it reads more as a summary than a critical analysis. The discussion could benefit from more explicit critique and synthesis of conflicting findings or methodological limitations in the literature (e.g., variability in specimen preparation, lack of field validation).
2. The manuscript notes the lack of standard testing protocols but could further elaborate on how this affects the comparability of published results. Suggestions for how the field might move toward standardization (e.g., adopting or adapting existing timber testing standards) would strengthen this section.
3. The review touches on environmental durability and sustainability but could expand its discussion on the environmental impact of adhesives used (e.g., formaldehyde-based resins), end-of-life considerations, and potential life cycle assessments compared to conventional materials.
4. The manuscript concludes that bamboo scrimber is more suitable for structural applications, while laminated bamboo is better for non-structural use. It would be helpful to include a brief discussion on the limitations, such as regulatory acceptance in building codes or challenges in upscaling production for mass adoption.
5. Figures (e.g., Figs. 5–10): The figures effectively illustrate the comparative performance of bamboo products, but axis labels should always include units, and figure captions should more fully describe what is being shown (e.g., data sources, sample sizes).
6. Figures (e.g., Figs. 5–10): The figures effectively illustrate the comparative performance of bamboo products, but axis labels should always include units, and figure captions should more fully describe what is being shown (e.g., data sources, sample sizes).
7. Durability (Section 3.1.7): More detail on testing methodologies for durability and examples of failure mechanisms observed in practice would be beneficial.
8. Some sentences could be clarified for brevity and flow, but overall the English is clear and of high quality.
9. Acronyms (e.g., MOR, MOE, PF) should be defined upon first use in the main text.

Overall, this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable construction materials and will be of interest to the readership of Sustainability. I recommend publication after minor revisions, addressing the points raised above—particularly the need for deeper critical analysis and clarification of methodological limitations

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Please find our detailed responses to your remarks in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically reviews the mechanical properties, processing and durability of engineered bamboo materials (recombinant bamboo and laminated bamboo). By analyzing 51 Q1/Q2 journal articles, it is pointed out that recombinant bamboo is superior to laminated bamboo in compressive/tensile strength and other indexes due to fiber densification and resin impregnation process, and reveals the shortcomings of the current research in terms of the uniformity of the testing standards, long-term durability data and optimization of the adhesive, which is aimed at promoting the application of engineered bamboo in sustainable construction. application of engineered bamboo in sustainable construction. The following are suggestions and comments on the article:

1. section 3.1.2 emphasizes the effect of fiber orientation on tensile strength (128.2 MPa→8.1 MPa), but it is not related to the improvement of orthogonal lamination process for laminated bamboo.

2. Literature [10] is cited as the source of shear strength data in section 3.1.4, but it is labeled as “not reported” in Table 1, which is contradictory.

3. Section 3.1.7 states that bamboo recomposite “maintains high load-bearing capacity after cracking”, but no quantitative data on residual strength (e.g., damage tolerance coefficients) is provided, which is misleading for the design of structural safety.

4. There are differences in testing conditions and standards between different studies, which may affect the direct comparison of data. Although the authors point this out, they do not explain how to deal with the differences in testing conditions (e.g., sample size, loading rate, temperature and humidity) between different studies.

5. The conclusion advocates the “full replacement of traditional structural materials by reconstituted bamboo”, but section 4.1 mentions that its fire performance is dependent on formaldehyde-based adhesives (e.g., PF/MUF), which is contrary to the sustainability goals.

6. In the discussion section, the challenges and limitations of bamboo in practical engineering applications, such as fire performance, durability, etc., should be added, and corresponding solutions or research directions should be proposed.

7. The conclusion should be improved, while the conclusion should be placed before the Future Research Needs.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and detailed evaluation of our manuscript. Please find our point-by-point responses in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s support in recommending this manuscript for publication in Sustainability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors state in their response document that they have made changes to address the review comments, but for some of the comments, I do not see the changes in the corresponding location in the revised manuscript (comments  2, 3, 4).

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. Unfortunately, an earlier version of the manuscript was uploaded by mistake. The most updated version has now been submitted. We sincerely apologize for the oversight.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a sufficient revision.