Comparative Studies on Two Types of OSB Boards Obtained from Mixed Resinous and Fast-growing Hard Wood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is adequate and introduces the key aspects of the research, as well as some of the outputs.

The paper has to be proofread. This is my opinion as non native English speaker, but as example:

Line 42: “and adhesive as reinforce”, where “reinforcement” seems more appropriate.

Line 58: “There were also evaluates the possibility…”, was instead of were seem better.

This issues are a distraction while reading the text.

How many specimens of any Type were analyzed?

Why not an ANOVA to stablish the significance of the differences between the properties of the different types of OSB?

 The text in figure 3 and 4 is too small in comparison to figure 2.

A picture of the OSB types analyzed by the researchers, side by side to a commercial one, with a section detail can help the readers.

In resume, the paper has merit to be published, but needs a proofread that ensures a correct interpretation of all the data.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• The paper has to be proofread. This is my opinion as non native English speaker, but as example:
• Line 42: “and adhesive as reinforce”, where “reinforcement” seems more appropriate.

Authors: “reinforce” was changed in “reinforcement”.

• Line 58: “There were also evaluates the possibility…”, was instead of were seem better.

This issues are a distraction while reading the text.

Authors: Word “were” was changed in “was”.

• How many specimens of any Type were analyzed?

Authors: Generally 10 samples were used. Line 195 “10 specimens” were introduced.

• Why not an ANOVA to stablish the significance of the differences between the properties of the different types of OSB?

Authors: In order to analyse the difference between properties of the different types of OSB it was opted to apply a similar method - interval plots diagrams from Minitab 17 program. The principle is the same - comparative analysis of the sample means.

• The text in figure 3 and 4 is too small in comparison to figure 2.

Authors: Sizes of figures 2, 3 and 4 were changed and became equal in size.

• A picture of the OSB types analyzed by the researchers, side by side to a commercial one, with a section detail can help the readers.

Authors: Figures 5, 6 and 8 correspond to the reviewer's observations. We combined the methodology for making the figures in the Excel program with the one in the Minitab 18 program, so that the work goes beyond the monotony stage, to become more attractive for the readers. 

• In resume, the paper has merit to be published, but needs a proofread that ensures a correct interpretation of all the data.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an important topic which is searching a new wood materials to OSB production. Despite of the fact that in a literature it is possible to find a lot of articles which present this topic, it is still important to develop this part of knowledge.

At the beginning of introduction authors presented quite basic information about OSB – like in a technical student book. Maybe it will be worth to remove this basic knowledge and focus on the description on a main aim of the work. This comment is only suggestion to discussion.

The comparison of OSB and plywood in a sentence in lines 49-51 is controversial. I do not agree that the main differences between OSB and plywood is price. Both of materials looks like sandwich (3,5, 7 layers) and in this field it can be similar. But the utilities aspects and mechanical parameters are different. Text in lines 247-253 is not result description but it is a summarise of methodology. It can be removed or bring into experimental description.

Repetition of time (24) of swelling and absorption test (lines 250, 267 etc.) is not necessary because in this work you did not change this parameter.

In lines 178 and 179 authors present really basic description of methodology of chips gluing. The mixing procedure of chips and glue it is one of the most important part of the OSB production and it have to be repeatable. This procedure have to be described with more details. This explanation should be helpful with understanding the results i.e. differences of density of OSB board  of mixed hardwood products (Figure 2) or differences of swelling results (Figure 3). This differences should be interpreted and described.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

• The article presents an important topic which is searching a new wood materials to OSB production. Despite of the fact that in a literature it is possible to find a lot of articles which present this topic, it is still important to develop this part of knowledge.

• At the beginning of introduction authors presented quite basic information about OSB – like in a technical student book. Maybe it will be worth to remove this basic knowledge and focus on the description on a main aim of the work. This comment is only suggestion to discussion.

Authors: Much of the introduction area has been changed, in line with the reviewer's observation. Some sentences were erased, i.e. : “It has been found that higroscopicity decreases slightly with increasing temperature and that increasing the adhesive content from 3% to 5% is not sufficient to compensate for board degradation by heat treatment”. Others were grouped, i.e. lines 52,70 and 134.

• The comparison of OSB and plywood in a sentence in lines 49-51 is controversial. I do not agree that the main differences between OSB and plywood is price. Both of materials looks like sandwich (3,5, 7 layers) and in this field it can be similar. But the utilities aspects and mechanical parameters are different.

Authors: We changed this sentence; lines 49-51 concordant with the reviewer observation: “From this last point of view, OSB boards are almost similar to plywood; one difference could be that the price of OSB boards is much lower than the plywood that it successfully replaces today in construction field”

• Text in lines 247-253 is not result description but it is a summarise of methodology. It can be removed or bring into experimental description.

Authors: This paragraph was put in the method zone, lines 239-243.

• Repetition of time (24) of swelling and absorption test (lines 250, 267 etc.) is not necessary because in this work you did not change this parameter.

Authors: Expression 24h was erased; lines 264 and 273.

• In lines 178 and 179 authors present really basic description of methodology of chips gluing. The mixing procedure of chips and glue it is one of the most important part of the OSB production and it have to be repeatable. This procedure have to be described with more details. This explanation should be helpful with understanding the results i.e. differences of density of OSB board  of mixed hardwood products (Figure 2) or differences of swelling results (Figure 3). This differences should be interpreted and described.

Authors: The methodology was completed with the data required by the reviewer, lines 177-179: “To obtain the repeatability of the mixing conditions of the chips with adhesive, a mechanical mixer was used, and the materials were weighed in grams on an electronic scale with an accuracy of 0.1 g. The operation was performed very carefully.” Also, when interpreting the results, the necessary completions were made, lines 320-321: “In the paper, the same adhesive recipe was used for all analyzed OSB boards, which is why the adhesive factor was removed from the analysis”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your work. I accept all changes.