Some of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of Particleboard Made from Betung Bamboo (Dendrocalamus asper)

REVIEWER 1

Materials and methods

1.      

No information on size distribution of particles is given for both types.  It is expected to provide the analysis of length, width and thickness for representative quantity of particles, not mentioning other shape-based parameters of chips. These are determinants form various properties of panels.

Thank you. We have explained the geometry and dimension of particle in paragraph 1 Ch. 2.1.

At the scientific level giving three dimensions of a particle seems to be insufficient to describe a whole population. How many particles have You measured? One? Are they average values? What were the standard deviations?

We could explain that for calculating the dimension of the particle, we measure the coarse particle size as size distribution in a number of 10 samples with the values with an average 10.10 mm (SD= +/-   1.101) in length, 2.14 mm (SD= +/-   0.344) in width, and 0.50 mm (SD= +/-   0.015) in thickness as result from disk flaker. Unfortunately, we did not measure the size of the chips as raw material after converting them from the bamboo culm. We also did not measure the fine particles, because we only put the chips to the hammer mill for making 10 mesh particle size.

We have revised with add explanation in the manuscript for the size distribution of particles in paragraph 1 Ch. 2.1. (yellow highlight)

2.      

Multiple standards are available on 2d surface roughness determination. Please point the one you used.

There was no answer for the comment.

Thank you. We miss to answer

Currently there is no accepted standard method to evaluate surface roughness of PB panels

126: “…CA as a function of time was calculated using a polynomial regression model until a quadratic equation was obtained” – how to understand it? Additionally neither the regression model nor the equation is given in the result section.

The models were the way to obtain CA values. We have mentioned the reference for calculating and developing the model.

We have added the explanation for the model in last sentence at Ch. 3.2.

[27] Darmawan, W.; Nandika, D.; Noviyanti, E.; Alipraja, I.; Lumongga, D.; Gardener, D. Wettability and bonding quality of ex-terior coatings on jabon and sengon wood surfaces. J. Coatings Technol. Res 2018, 15, 95–104 doi:10.1007/s11998-017-9954-1.

Sustain. Why general polynomial regression was used? Why not simply quadratic regression for the first segment of data?

In the referenced paper it was clear from the beginning that the segmented regression function was applied: quadratic at the beginning and linear for later stage.

We have revised and added the sentence to explain better about the method in determining CA with a segmented regression model in paragraph 3 Ch 2.3 (yellow highlight)

Results and Discussion

3.      

The panels’ density issue needs to be corrected/explained. First the target density of 0.8 g/cm3 is given in section 2 (l. 88). Then in the table 2 two 0.58 values are displayed and in the line 181 even different density is mentioned 0.75g/cm3. What is it finally?

Thank you for you criticize. The target density was 0.8 g/cm3; and the actual density was 0.58 g/cm3

ok

Thanks

4.      

The 40% of the density decrease means that the laboratory scale manufacturing method should be improved, since you are not producing what you planned

It is possible to happen as like also in others study. Thanks

Ok

Thanks

5.      

I suggest to use another method of indicating values statistically equal or different than using “a” and “b” letters since for example figure 1 contains two plots marked also with “a” and “b”. This is confusing.

Thank you. We make a revision with “higher” letter for significancy. It also for others figure for make a clear.

Have You? I still see it not corrected!

Ok, thanks. We have revised the Figures to make tem clear and not confusing.

6.      

None of values of MOR and MOE (l.244-245) equals values displayed in figure 2! You should also use only one of MOE units: GPa or N/mm2

We put MOE in GPa unit; and MOR in MPa unit as shown in Figure 2

??? You have not answered any of two concerns!

1. still different values in figure and in the text

2. MOE values still not unified (for example l.255 in version2.

Thank you

1.    I have changed the value in the text in N/mm2 to be GPa (see in text)

2.    Yes, thanks for scrutinize

Please see the Table 1 and paragraph 1 Ch 3.2 (the third last sentence, yellow highlight)

7.      

L.290 maybe “is” word is missing in the sentence?

Ok, thank you for your correction

ok

Thanks

8.      

l.295-296 the statement seems unjustified since in experiment only two types of panels were used. It is hard to generalize based on two cases.

We think it is clear as comparison for two kinds types of particles

ok

Thanks

9.      

l.298 “ideal wetting” – use more appropriate word

We change with “perfect wetting”

ok

Thanks

10.   

Table 3. delete “Degree” word following “CA”

Thank you for your correction

ok

Thanks

11.   

Two figures 6 exist in the manuscript.

Thank you we have made correction

ok

Thanks

12.   

Fig. 6 (l. 349) – why the standard deviation is so different between fine and coarse particleboards?

The termite consumption rate was higher than fungi on lignocellulosic-based composite materials, therefore the diversity of feeding capacity, which is described as the standard deviation becomes larger.

We have added the explanation in the text revision

ok

Thanks

Conclusions

13.   

l.354 correct the sentence.

We think it was right conclusion

Ok. Sorry, my mistake.

OK. Thanks

REVIEWER 2

1.      

Line 185-187 on page 5, the authors stated that "the density of the raw material is one of the major parameters influencing overall panel density and properties. The relationship between the particleboard density and the raw material density is known as the compaction ratio (CR)". The authors should clarify that:

1.1. Is overall density of the single-layer particleboard associated with the particle size of raw material or associated with the density of the raw material?

1.2. Is the compaction ratio related to the particle size of the raw material or related to the density of the raw material?

1.3. The authors should reinforce the statement (line 185) with references.

1.1. In related panel density, the density of the raw materials is important factor; the particle size become major factor influencing the board properties not only panel density

1.2  The CR related to density of raw material

1.3   We have put the reference for number [31]: Maloney, T.M. Modern Particleboard and Dry Process Fiberboard Manufacturing, Miller Freeman Inc: San Fransisco, 1993.

2.      

Line 318 on page 10, the authors need to check the figure number.

Ok, thank you for correction. It should be Figure 7.