Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the attached document.

Author Response

I noticed several small mistakes in English (such as Line 12 through 13 ,,....in bonded in layer assemblies.... "- that does not make sense). I will not type them all out in this review, please re-read your manuscript and correct these mistakes.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The manuscript has been carefully re-read and thoroughly revised to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and enhance the overall clarity of the English language. Particular attention was given to the sections where wording could cause ambiguity, and the text has been edited accordingly to improve readability throughout the manuscript. The manuscript has also been carefully proofread to ensure consistent and clear scientific language throughout the text.

 

I suggest a small change in the title of the article,,. Samples Coated with various Film-forming

substances" or simply ,,.... Samples Coated with various types of coatings".

Answer

Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. The authors fully appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation and agree that such a formulation could generally describe studies involving different coating systems. However, the primary objective of the present study is to investigate the effect of adhesive systems on water vapor diffusion behavior in Smaragdfa wood. In this context, the lasure coating was included only as a reference material, providing a semi-permeable benchmark against which the diffusion behavior of the investigated adhesive systems could be evaluated. Furthermore, the custom-made synthesized resin formulations used in this study are conceptually derived from adhesive systems and were specifically designed to investigate how variations in polyol molecular weight influence vapor diffusion through adhesive layers. Therefore, the scientific focus of the manuscript is centered on adhesive-related diffusion behavior rather than on general coating performance. For this reason, the authors believe that the current title more accurately reflects the scope and objectives of the study. Nevertheless, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion.

 

 

 

 

The word "lasure" is not the correct spelling. It is "lasur" or "stain"

 

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The authors acknowledge that the term originates from the German word “Lasur”, which is commonly used in European wood technology and coating literature to describe semi-transparent, film-forming wood finishes that allow partial water vapor diffusion while limiting liquid water uptake. In the present manuscript, the term “lasure” is intentionally retained because it refers to a specific type of coating widely used in European wood engineering practice and technical documentation. To avoid possible ambiguity for international readers, the term has been clarified in the manuscript at its first occurrence by explaining its function as a semi-permeable wood coating that allows controlled vapor diffusion.

 

Line 16: I see the reasoning for using lasur - coated samples as control, but you should have stated that you used the untreated samples to have something to compare the water vapor diffusion of coated samples to.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that this point should be stated more clearly. In the revised manuscript, it has been clarified that the untreated Smaragdfa wood samples (SMW) were used as the baseline reference material to allow direct comparison of the water vapor diffusion behavior between uncoated and coated specimens. The lasure-coated samples were included as an additional reference system representing a semi-permeable coating that allows partial vapor diffusion. This clarification has now been added in the manuscript to improve the description of the experimental design.

 

 

Line 54: "affect", not "effect on".

Answer

Thank you for pointing out this correction. The wording has been revised accordingly, and the term “effect on” has been replaced with the correct form “affect” in the revised manuscript.

 

Lines 81 - 93 should be moved behind Line 61. The Introduction should end with the focus of your work.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The structure of the Introduction has been revised accordingly. The paragraph previously located in Lines 81–93, which describes the objective and scope of the study, has been moved to follow Line 61 so that the Introduction now concludes with a clear statement of the research focus. This modification improves the logical flow of the Introduction and highlights the aim of the work more clearly.

 

Line 101: "its high sensitivity to moisture" is there a work which can support this claim? All wood species due to their hygroscopic nature are sensitive to moisture, and I might be wrong here, I have not read any works on whether one wood species is more sensitive to moisture than other.

Answer

Thank you for this important observation. We agree that all wood species are hygroscopic and therefore inherently sensitive to moisture variations. In order to avoid overgeneralization, the statement has been revised in the manuscript. The description now emphasizes the high porosity and anatomical characteristics of Smaragdfa wood, which may contribute to pronounced moisture-related dimensional responses compared with denser wood species. The wording has been adjusted accordingly to improve scientific accuracy.

 

Line 136: What does MW stand for? It is stated only in Line 154 in the manuscript; it should be explained when mentioned for the first time in the manuscript.

Answer

The abbreviation is now introduced as molecular weight (MW) when first mentioned in the Materials section.

 

Line 139: What does MDI stand for?

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The abbreviation MDI (methylene diphenyl isocyanate) has now been defined at its first occurrence in the manuscript to ensure clarity for the reader.

 

Line 172: Is the temperature of 40°C set according to the mentioned standard? If this temperature was used during coating application and the experiment, the glass transition points of the used film forming materials should be mentioned, to ensure that the experiment temperature was below glass transition points on the film forming materials.

Answer

Thank you for this important comment. The temperature of 40°C was used only during the pre-conditioning stage of the wood specimens in order to reach an equilibrium moisture content close to 12% prior to the diffusion experiment. This temperature was not used during coating application or during the vapor diffusion test itself.The vapor diffusion experiments were conducted in a controlled steam chamber environment according to the cup-method principles described in ISO 12572 and ASTM E96. The purpose of the conditioning step at 40°C was solely to stabilize the moisture content of the samples before testing.

 

Line 173: What type of machine was used to sand the samples? What kind and number of sanding paper was used? Machining of the surface has an influence on the coating of wood, please fill the information in. Reference for influence of surface machining on coating performance: Slabejova, G., Fekiac, J., Panek, M., Influence of selected factors on colour change of the transparent finishes at beech wood. In: Acta Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen, 56 (1): 23-30, 2014

Answer

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that surface preparation can influence coating performance and adhesion behavior. Therefore, additional details regarding the sanding procedure have been included in the revised manuscript. The specimens were sanded using a laboratory sanding machine with sequential sanding papers (P120–P180) to obtain a uniform and smooth surface prior to coating application. A reference highlighting the influence of surface machining on coating behavior has also been added to the manuscript.

 

 

Line 176: How many layers exactly were applied? Did the authors measure the thickness of the final coating? Please refer to the article I suggested above for why coating thickness is an important factor.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. The coatings were applied in several thin consecutive layers using a sponge roller until the target application rate of approximately 150 g/m² was reached, ensuring uniform coating distribution across the specimen surface. The application rate was controlled according to the manufacturer's recommendation to obtain comparable coating thickness among the tested specimens.

 

Line 189: As I mentioned in a previous note, the glass transition points of each coating need to be filled in. Air temperature of 70°C is very high and could have changed the properties of the coating used which could have majorly impacted the results of the experiment.

 

Answer

 

Thank you for this important comment. The elevated temperature used in the diffusion chamber was selected in order to accelerate the vapor diffusion process under controlled conditions, following the general principles of accelerated cup-method testing. The temperature of approximately 70 °C was applied to generate a stable high-humidity environment and to shorten the duration of the diffusion experiment. The coatings and adhesive systems used in this study are based on polyurethane and MDI-containing formulations typically designed for structural wood applications, which are stable at temperatures above the experimental range used in this work. Therefore, the applied temperature was not expected to exceed the glass transition temperature of the cured adhesive systems or significantly alter their diffusion behavior.

 

Line 196: If there was water vapor condensation found on the coated surfaces, the authors should also state the water resistance of the coatings used in the experiment. A short-term water vapor condensates exposure should be fine, but a long-term water vapor condensates exposure could be counted as aging, which is a factor for coating performance.

Answer

Thank you for this important observation. During the experiment, condensed water occasionally formed on the specimen surfaces due to the high humidity conditions inside the chamber. However, the experimental setup was designed to minimize long-term water accumulation on the coated surfaces. The metallic grid holding the samples was inclined at approximately 15°, allowing condensed droplets to slide off the specimen surfaces. In addition, surface moisture was gently removed before each weighing step.

Therefore, the coated specimens were not subjected to prolonged liquid water exposure, but rather to short-term condensate contact typical of high-humidity diffusion environments. The coatings used in this study, including lasure coatings and polyurethane-based adhesive systems, are commonly designed for exterior wood applications and exhibit resistance to short-term water exposure.

Line 201: Please fill in the equations for Fick, s laws.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The methodology section has been revised accordingly. The governing equations based on Fick’s first and second laws of diffusion have now been explicitly included in the revised manuscript, together with the related equations used for calculating water vapor permeability, permeance, vapor pressure difference, and mass change rate. These additions improve the clarity and reproducibility of the experimental methodology.

 

Line 251: Why is the text divided into bullet points here?

Answer

Thank you for this comment. In the revised manuscript, the bullet-point formatting has been removed and the text has been reorganized into a continuous scientific paragraph to improve readability and maintain consistency with the journal formatting style.

 

A general point for Results section: please introduce SMAJ, SMAX, SML and the likes properly, the Results cannot be properly understood without an explanation of the meanings.

 

Answer

Thank you for this helpful observation. In the revised manuscript, the abbreviations referring to the different sample configurations (e.g., SMWAJ, SMWAX, SMWL, SMWS1–SMWS5) have been clearly introduced and explained at their first occurrence in the Results section to ensure that their meanings are immediately understandable to the reader.

In addition, a separate “List of Abbreviations” section has been added at the end of the manuscript, where all abbreviations used throughout the text are clearly defined to further improve clarity and readability.

 

Overall, the Results need to be simplified in terms of Table data and data stated in text coordination. The vapor flow rates are stated in Tab. 2, yet the authors keep on mentioning almost every data line in the text as well. Therefore, the text is difficult to read when it is constantly interrupted with numbers from the Table.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, the Results section has been simplified accordingly. The excessive repetition of numerical values already presented in Table 2 has been reduced, and the text now focuses primarily on describing the main trends and comparative relationships between the investigated samples. Detailed numerical values remain presented in the table, while the narrative discussion highlights only the most relevant findings. These modifications improve the readability and overall clarity of the Results section.

 

Conclusion: The authors explained some abbreviations, but most remained unexplained in this section. I suggest no abbreviations for the Conclusion part, to make it easier to understand.\

Answer

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the use of abbreviations throughout the text has been carefully reviewed. Abbreviations were retained in some cases to avoid unnecessary repetition of long technical terms; however, their meanings have now been clearly introduced in the manuscript. In addition, a dedicated “List of Abbreviations” section has been added at the end of the manuscript, where all abbreviations used throughout the paper are fully explained. These revisions aim to improve clarity and readability for the reader.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors focus on an application-interesting issue, namely the diffusion (transmission) of water vapor through glued wood of the fast-growing hybrid Paulownia. This is a suitable contribution to the journal Applied Sciences (Materials Science and Engineering section) and its special issue "International Conference Wood Science and Engineering in the Third Millennium–ICWSE 2025". The connection with the conference, which took place in November last year, is now irrelevant. Unfortunately, with regard to the overall appearance of the article, see some serious shortcomings below, I propose to reject it and possibly completely revise it, even though the results obtained are interesting and beneficial. The style of this manuscript should not be as if it were a conference paper, but as if it were article for an impact journal.

I recommend that you study the "template" of the given magazine better; many requirements are not followed, see for example:

1. The method literary sources are cited in the "References" chapter is incorrect. In addition, the standards used and cited in the article are not included here (see also point 3). And even so, the number of literary sources is pitifully low (!), see there are basic books on water movement or transport processes in wood, for example by C. Skaar or J. F. Siau and their followers in research on this issue.
2. The article uses a significant number of abbreviations, including those in the abstract, but I miss the "Abbreviations" chapter in the article. Moreover, both the "Results" chapter and the "Conclusions" chapter have become almost incomprehensible to the reader because of them.
3. I miss any formula in the methodology; see only the reference to standards (paragraph on lines 201 to 210).
4. The "Discussion" chapter is not in the article, only the "Results" chapter. But although it discusses this issue, it does not contain any citations.
5. The graphic elements of the article are insufficient. Figure 1 is completely unnecessary, and the descriptions of the others are insufficient, including the legends.
6. I lack statistics on the obtained results in a clear form, and it was also possible to use factor analysis (ANOVA) with regard to the statistical significance or non-significance of the obtained results.

In the case of the diffusion coefficient, you used the unit kg/m.s.Pa, in accordance with the ISO 12572 standard. With regard to the unit commonly used for wood, and for possible comparison in the discussion, it is m2/s. But that is okay, just as it is acceptable that you did not even measure the “reference samples” without surface treatment with lasures or glues.

I have not addressed other “minorities” of a formal nature at the moment in the given situation.

Author Response

 

1. The method literary sources are cited in the "References" chapter is incorrect. In addition, the standards used and cited in the article are not included here (see also point 3). And even so, the number of literary sources is pitifully low (!), see there are basic books on water movement or transport processes in wood, for example by C. Skaar or J. F. Siau and their followers in research on this issue.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised with particular attention to the reference formatting and citation style. All references have been checked and reformatted according to the journal guidelines. In addition, the relevant standards used in this study (ISO 12572 and ASTM E96) have now been properly included in the reference list. Furthermore, the number of literature sources has been expanded to strengthen the scientific background of the study. Several additional references related to moisture transport and diffusion processes in wood have been incorporated, including classical and widely recognized works on water movement in wood. These additions provide a broader theoretical context and improve the scientific depth of the manuscript.

2. The article uses a significant number of abbreviations, including those in the abstract, but I miss the "Abbreviations" chapter in the article. Moreover, both the "Results" chapter and the "Conclusions" chapter have become almost incomprehensible to the reader because of them.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the large number of abbreviations used throughout the manuscript may affect readability. Therefore, the manuscript has been revised accordingly. A dedicated “List of Abbreviations” section has been added at the end of the manuscript, summarizing all abbreviations used in the article to facilitate easier reading and interpretation of the Results and Conclusions sections. In addition, several abbreviations have been clarified at their first occurrence in the text, including in the Abstract and the main sections. These revisions improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

 

3. I miss any formula in the methodology; see only the reference to standards (paragraph on lines 201 to 210).

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. The methodology section has been revised to include the fundamental equations used for the evaluation of water vapor diffusion. In the revised manuscript, the governing equations based on Fick’s first and second laws of diffusion, as well as the expressions used for calculating water vapor permeability (δ), permeance (W), vapor pressure difference, and mass change rate, have been explicitly introduced in Section 2.2.2 (Measuring the water vapor permeability through the adhesive layer). These additions clarify the calculation procedure and improve the transparency and reproducibility of the methodology.

 

 

4. The "Discussion" chapter is not in the article, only the "Results" chapter. But although it discusses this issue, it does not contain any citations.

Answer

Thank you for this important observation. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. In the revised version, the section has been expanded and renamed to “Results and Discussion” in order to clearly distinguish between the presentation of experimental results and their scientific interpretation.

In addition, relevant literature has been incorporated throughout this section to support the interpretation of the results and to place the findings in the context of previous studies on moisture transport and vapor diffusion in wood and adhesive systems. These additions strengthen the scientific discussion and improve the connection between the present results and existing research.

5. The graphic elements of the article are insufficient. Figure 1 is completely unnecessary, and the descriptions of the others are insufficient, including the legends.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The graphical elements of the manuscript have been revised accordingly. The figure captions have been expanded to provide clearer and more informative descriptions of the experimental results and diffusion behavior presented in the graphs. In addition, the previously included photograph (Figure 1) has been removed because it did not contribute directly to the scientific interpretation of the results.

6. I lack statistics on the obtained results in a clear form, and it was also possible to use factor analysis (ANOVA) with regard to the statistical significance or non-significance of the obtained results.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. The statistical evaluation of the results has been improved in the revised manuscript. In order to assess the statistical significance of the observed differences in water vapor permeability, one-way ANOVA analysis has been introduced and applied to the experimental data.The corresponding statistical results, including F-values and p-values, are now presented within the Results and Discussion section to clearly demonstrate the statistical significance of the differences between the investigated surface treatments. These additions provide a clearer statistical interpretation of the results and strengthen the reliability of the conclusions

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article!
Recommendations for improving the article:
1. Authors should more clearly articulate the relevance, purpose of the study, main results, and conclusions. The journal is interdisciplinary. Therefore, the text should be understandable to specialists in various fields.
2. I recommend the authors provide a photo of the Empress tree hybrid (× Paulownia Clone in vitro 112), as this is a rare crop and may be poorly known internationally.
3. It would be useful to include other tree species in the experiment, for example, as a negative control. In its current form, the study appears incomplete because it does not allow us to demonstrate the advantages of using the Empress tree hybrid compared to other trees.
4. The article is not formatted according to MDPI guidelines, contains very few references, and the REFERENCES are outdated. Recent references from the last two years should be added.
Only after revision can the article be published in the journal "Appl. Sci."
Respectfully yours, reviewer.
February 27, 2026

Author Response

1. Authors should more clearly articulate the relevance, purpose of the study, main results, and conclusions. The journal is interdisciplinary. Therefore, the text should be understandable to specialists in various fields.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised to improve the clarity and accessibility of the study for a broader interdisciplinary audience.

In particular, the Introduction section has been revised to more clearly highlight the relevance and objective of the study, emphasizing the importance of water vapor diffusion in bonded wood systems and its implications for engineered wood products.

Furthermore, the main findings and their practical significance have been clarified in the Results and Discussion and Conclusions sections, with additional explanations provided to make the results easier to understand for researchers from different scientific backgrounds. These revisions aim to improve the overall readability and interdisciplinary accessibility of the manuscript.

 

2. 
   I recommend the authors provide a photo of the Empress tree hybrid (× Paulownia Clone in vitro 112), as this is a rare crop and may be poorly known internationally.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In order to improve the clarity of the manuscript and to provide a visual reference for readers who may not be familiar with this species, a photograph of the Empress tree hybrid (× Paulownia Clone in vitro 112), also known as Smaragdfa®, has been added to the Materials section as Figure 1. This addition helps introduce the studied wood species and improves the accessibility of the manuscript for an international readership.

 

3. It would be useful to include other tree species in the experiment, for example, as a negative control. In its current form, the study appears incomplete because it does not allow us to demonstrate the advantages of using the Empress tree hybrid compared to other trees.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including additional wood species could provide a broader comparative perspective. However, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the water vapor diffusion behavior of Smaragdfa wood (× Paulownia Clone in vitro 112) when coated with different adhesive systems, particularly focusing on the influence of adhesive molecular weight on vapor diffusion behavior.

Therefore, the experimental design was intentionally limited to a single wood species in order to isolate the effect of the adhesive layers and avoid the influence of anatomical differences between wood species. Since wood structure (density, porosity, vessel distribution, and cell wall structure) strongly affects vapor diffusion behavior, including additional species would introduce additional variables beyond the scope of the present study.

Nevertheless, the authors agree that comparative studies involving multiple wood species would be highly valuable and may represent an interesting direction for future research.

 

4. 
   The article is not formatted according to MDPI guidelines, contains very few references, and the REFERENCES are outdated. Recent references from the last two years should be added.

Answer

Thank you for this important comment. The manuscript has been revised to improve its compliance with the MDPI formatting requirements, and the reference list has been expanded to strengthen the scientific background of the study. In addition, the references have been reformatted according to the journal style.

The authors also acknowledge the importance of including more literature, and additional references relevant to water vapor diffusion, moisture transport in wood, and adhesive–wood interactions have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Previous comment: Line 176: How many layers exactly were applied? Did the authors measure the thickness of the final coating?

New comment: The author´s answer still did not answer my question. Can the authors state at least an average number of coats applied?

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The coating procedure has been clarified in the revised manuscript (Section 2.2.1, Sample preparation). The coatings were applied in three consecutive thin layers using a sponge roller to ensure uniform surface coverage, with a total target application rate of approximately 150 g/m². The thickness of the final coating layer was not directly measured, and this information has now been explicitly stated in the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous comment: Line 189: As I mentioned in a previous note, the glass transition points of each coating need to be filled in. Air temperature of 70°C is very high and could have changed the properties of the coating used which could have majorly impacted the results of the experiment.

New comment: The authors should put this explanation “ The coatings and adhesive systems used in this study are based on polyurethane and MDI-containing formulations typically designed for structural wood applications, which are stable at temperatures above the experimental range used in this work. Therefore, the applied temperature was not expected to exceed the glass transition temperature of the cured adhesive systems or significantly alter their diffusion behavior.“ Into Materials and Methods to emphasize the suitability of the used coating material for the experiment.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. As recommended, this explanation has now been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript (Section 2.2.2) to clarify the suitability of the coating materials for the experimental temperature conditions. The manuscript now explicitly states that the polyurethane- and MDI-based adhesive systems used in this study are designed for structural wood applications and remain stable at temperatures above the experimental range (~70 °C), ensuring that the experimental conditions do not exceed the glass transition temperature of the cured adhesive systems.

 

 

 

 

Previous comment: Line 196: If there was water vapor condensation found on the coated surfaces, the authors should also state the water resistance of the coatings used in the experiment. A short-term water vapor condensates exposure should be fine, but a long-term water vapor condensates exposure could be counted as aging, which is a factor for coating performance.

New comment: Again, this sentence in a slightly modified version “The coatings used in this study, including lasure coatings and polyurethane-based adhesive systems, are commonly designed for exterior wood applications and exhibit resistance to short-term water exposure.“ Should be added to Materials and Methods, same reason as the prior comment.

Answer

 

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. As recommended, the explanation regarding the water resistance of the coatings has now been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for addressing most of the basic shortcomings of the initial draft. The number of references has now reached the acceptable minimum (25).

It is somewhat unfortunate that the revisions were not submitted using tracked changes; however, this is acceptable.

Several minor issues remain. These include, for example, the use of semicolons (e.g., in the keywords), the numbering of equations, and the list of abbreviations, where some items are missing and the entries should be arranged alphabetically. There are also a few typographical errors (e.g., line 280 – Figure 41; the designation of the subchapter on line 342, etc.). These, however, are relatively minor issues.

The information provided on lines 104–106 appears unnecessary with respect to the topic of the paper. In addition, the self-citation listed in the references on line 508 is presented inappropriately, particularly in its Hungarian title. The statement concerning density on line 98 should also be properly referenced.

Author Response

the use of semicolons (e.g., in the keywords), the numbering of equations, and the list of abbreviations, where some items are missing and the entries should be arranged alphabetically. There are also a few typographical errors (e.g., line 280 – Figure 41; the designation of the subchapter on line 342, etc.). These, however, are relatively minor issues.

Answer

 

Thank you for these helpful editorial comments. The manuscript has been carefully revised accordingly. The formatting of the keywords (including the correct use of semicolons) has been corrected, the numbering of equations has been checked and standardized, and the list of abbreviations has been revised with missing items added and arranged in alphabetical order. In addition, the entire manuscript has been carefully proofread to correct typographical errors, including the figure numbering and the subchapter designation mentioned by the reviewer.

 

 

The information provided on lines 104–106 appears unnecessary with respect to the topic of the paper.

Answer

 

Thank you for this helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, the detailed numerical values of the mechanical properties have been removed to avoid unnecessary information that is not directly related to the focus of the study. However, the general classification of the wood as a low-strength material has been retained, as it helps characterize the investigated wood species and provides basic context for understanding its moisture-related behavior. The sentence has been revised accordingly in the manuscript.

 

In addition, the self-citation listed in the references on line 508 is presented inappropriately, particularly in its Hungarian title.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The cited reference was included because the available scientific literature concerning the physical and mechanical properties of the Smaragdfa (× Paulownia Clone in vitro 112) wood is very limited. This species is mainly studied in a regional context, and the cited work provides one of the few available sources describing its basic material properties. In the present manuscript, this reference is used only to support the general description of the wood characteristics and not as a primary source for the diffusion analysis. In addition, the reference has been revised and reformatted in the reference list to comply with the journal style.

 

 The statement concerning density on line 98 should also be properly referenced.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The statement regarding the density of the Smaragdfa wood has now been properly referenced in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!
Thank you for your work on the article and for your response to the review.
You've done your homework, improved the article, and added a figure and new references.

Minor comments: 1) The phrase "in vitro" is always written in italics. 2) References must be formatted according to the journal's guidelines. 3) A separate paragraph on statistical data processing should be created in the Methodological Section of the manuscript.

Author Response

 

• The phrase "in vitro" is always written in italics.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The phrase in vitro has been corrected and is now written in italics throughout the manuscript in accordance with standard scientific formatting.

• References must be formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

Answer

Thank you for this helpful comment. The reference list has been carefully revised and reformatted according to the journal’s guidelines. All references have been checked for consistency in formatting, including author names, journal titles, publication details, and DOI information where applicable.

• A separate paragraph on statistical data processing should be created in the Methodological Section of the manuscript.

Answer

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the information concerning the statistical data processing has been clarified in the Materials and Methods section. A short explanation has been added indicating that the statistical evaluation of the experimental results was performed using one-way ANOVA to assess the significance of differences in water vapor permeability among the investigated samples.