Enhancing Surface Characteristics and Combustion Behavior of Black Poplar Wood through Varied Impregnation Techniques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
Please revise the manuscript according to the suggested revisions (attached). It would be better to ask someone else who are expert in this field.
The English must be improved, and it is suggested to ask a native English person who expert in this field.
This manuscript can be rejected if in this condition. Major Revision.
Thank you in advance,
Regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Dear Author,
The English must be improved, and it is suggested to ask a native English person who expert in this field.
Author Response
Dear Review 1;
First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my paper. Your comments and contributions are really important to me. Therefore, I am grateful to you. You can see the explanations I made regarding your evaluation below.
1- All spellings, signs and symbol errors you mentioned have been corrected.
2- All overlooked expressions and words have been meticulously examined. Corrected.
3- The sentences for which you requested revision have been grammatically reviewed and rewritten.
4- Your suggested corrections are highlighted in green in the colored file.
I sincerely thank you for your contributions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Section 2.2: Secondary headings should use three-level headings.
Section 3: The results and discussions should be organized into sub headings for ease of reading.
Line 204: Add reference(s).
Line 212, 214: “Surface” should be “surface”
Line 35, 95, Line 122, Line 194, Line 276, 278, 259, 269: Superscript and subscript errors.
Line 259: What substance does the new peak at 1450 cm-1 belong to? Is it lime particles. Please explain.
Line 271-273: Has the author calculated the peak intensity at 1060 cm-1? From Figure 1, it can be seen that the peak at 1060 cm-1 did not decrease.
Line 275-276: significant observation? Is there a relationship between the intensity of peak 873 cm-1 and the increase in lime water content
Line 277-278: The peak at 1060 cm-1 is not clear.
Line 278-279: Please provide clear evidence to prove it.
Line 279-280: where are compressive strength results? Delete this sentence.
Figure 4 and 5: Reorganize to ensure clear display of control and treatment groups. Add EDS or mapping data to obtain more information on the permeability of lime in wood by tracking the distribution of Ca element.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2;
First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my article. Your comments and contributions are really important to me. That's why I'm grateful to you. You can see the explanations I made regarding your evaluation below.
1- All spelling, sign and symbol errors you mentioned have been corrected.
2- All overlooked expressions and words have been examined meticulously. Corrected.
3- Title and subheading usages were corrected and created.
4- References were added to the lines you specified.
5- Relevant explanations were made in the FTIR analysis evaluation section. Reference was used. Some overlooked errors have been fixed.
6- The sentence you wanted to be deleted was discovered to be incorrect and has been deleted.
7- For SEM analysis, the my university does not have the equipment for the analysis you want. Unfortunately, I do not have enough budget and support to have this additional and additional analysis done at another institution. Since this work is important for my academic position to apply this month, I do not have the opportunity to add analysis. I think SEM images are sufficient. But I will take your valuable comment into consideration in my future work.
8- Your suggested corrections are highlighted in blue in the color file.
I thank you wholeheartedly for your contributions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
Please correct the manuscript according to the suggested revision (attached).
Thank you
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear Author,
Some English issues are still apparent in the manuscript. Please revise the manuscript.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear Review 1;
First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my paper. You can see the explanations I made regarding your evaluation below. New corrections have been made upon previous corrections. Your suggested corrections are highlighted in purple in the colored file.
1- All spellings, signs and symbol errors you mentioned have been corrected.
2- All overlooked expressions and words have been meticulously examined. Corrected.
3- The oven drying process continued until the weight of the samples did not change. The time it takes to reach full dry weight for wood material may vary. Therefore, continuous measurements are made at 1-2 hour intervals. But the wood material can become completely dry in approximately 8 hours. The weight does not change in the last two measurements.
4- The impregnation process was carried out under the conditions specified in the ASTM D 1413 standard. The samples in the solution left in a closed container were vacuumed with the help of a compressor. The pressure value is in accordance with the standard and correct. After 30 minutes of closed vacuum, it was left in the open area for 30 minutes. Relevant explanation has been added.
Temiz, A., Gezer, E. D., Yildiz, U. C., & Yildiz, S. (2008). Combustion properties of alder (Alnus glutinosa L.) Gaertn. subsp. barbata (CA Mey) Yalt.) and southern pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) wood treated with boron compounds. Construction and Building Materials, 22(11), 2165-2169.
Simsek, H., Baysal, E., & Peker, H. (2010). Some mechanical properties and decay resistance of wood impregnated with environmentally-friendly borates. Construction and Building Materials, 24(11), 2279-2284.
Oezcifci, A., & Okçu, O. (2008). The influence of the impregnating chemicals on the bonding strength of impregnated wood materials. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 107(5), 2871-2876.
Oezcifci, A., & Okçu, O. (2008). The influence of the impregnating chemicals on the bonding strength of impregnated wood materials. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 107(5), 2871-2876.
5- 30+30: means a pre-vacuum treatment at 760 mmHg-1 for 30 minutes, then left to diffuse in the solution at atmospheric pressure for 30 minutes.
6- Within the scope of the conditions specified in the standard, measurements were made at the 15th second after contact.
I sincerely thank you for your contributions.
Abdullah..
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
