Life Cycle Assessment of Coated and Thermally Modified Wood Façades
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work aimed to implement the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology on natural and thermally modified wooden building façades, in order to comparatively evaluate the environmental impact of these two types of building facades.
The work is considered interesting, however there several aspects which are considered that need to be clarified, revised and rework so this work will be also significant of content.
Title
The title is considered that doesn't reflect the content of the paper, as LCA was implemented on thermally modified wood (A1-A3, B1, B2) and on coated wood (B1, B2). No LCA analysis has been implemented on natural wood (without any surface treatment) especially during the use stage (B3, B4) witch is the most problematic for natural wood.
Therefore, it is considered that the word "natural" should be replaced with "coated" wood, unless natural wood (wood without any treatment, at any stage of its life), will be included in the paper. If this short of wood wont' be included, it is suggested to revise the title.
Some examples:
"Life Cycle Assessment of coated and thermally modified wooden facades"
"Assessing the environment impact of coated and heat-treated facades via LCA"
"A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of surface coated and thermally modified wooden building facades"
Abstract
An abstract should present info including, the background, the methodology followed, the results obtained and the respective conclusions drown.
The present abstract doesn't present this info, except the background which justifies the purpose of the study. This info should be included and thus it is recommended that the abstract should be rewritten.
Introduction
The introduction is considerer extremely long and it is not supported by the necessary citations. The LCA methodology is well-known so a brief description of LCA with appropriate citations would have been sufficient. Many unnecessary info are provided, however, other important aspects of LCA are not mentioned or defined, including the life cycle stages (product, construction process, use stage etc) or the LCA models "from cradle to gate" etc. Basic terms and definitions of LCA stages, models etc should appear and clarified before M&M and not at M&M where the reader is informed on the adopted methodology.
Materials and methods
This section is also extremely long and many parts are repeated at several points.
It is rather confusing why there are two sections "The following methodology was set to meet the objectives" and "The following methods were selected for the assessment" and why these two sections are not merged.
In general the whole section is considered complicated not only to the multiple repetition but also because important info on the basic terms and definitions of LCA stages, models etc are still not explained (tables 1 and 2 appear at the end of the section without been embedded in the text).
Nonetheless the most important problem of materials and methods is identified on the adopted methodology.
More specifically a) it is not justified why LCA "end of life stage" (C), was excluded from this study especially for alkyd coated wood of which the waist processing and disposal has an environmental impact and for thermally modified wood of which the biodegradability may change after heat-treatment; b) It is not explained why for the "coated" wood (where three different surface coatings were used) their environmental impact during "product stage" of LCA (A1-A3) hasn't been calculated and; c) why if authors aimed to implement LCA on natural wooden facades, didn't include natural wood without any surface treatment and calculate the environmental burden of maintenance, repair, replacement (B1-B3) during LCA "use stage".
It is considered that the LCA methodology for the calculation of the environmental impact of coated wood and thermal modified wood, should include the "product stage" (A), the construction process stage (B) and the "end of life stage" (C). If authors believe that stage C, is not important this should be explain and justify. Finally, if authors wish to include natural wood, (without any surface treatment), then the LCA should be also calculated for all stages A, B and possibly C too.
Results
Results are clearly presented, however some graph's captions and legends need to be corrected (see the pdf revised ms).
Conclusions
It is considered that conclusions are supported by the obtained results, however conclusions would be more vigorous and advantageous for heat-treated wood if a) the surface coatings' production impact was included in the "product stage" LCA (A1-A3 for coatings) and b) controls (natural wood without any treatment at all), has been included in the study and the "use" stage ( B1- B4) was calculated.
Moreover as end of life stage (C) is not included is recommended to be more reluctant when stating the LCA implemention on heat treated wood causes less environmental impact as the work is based on "cradle-to-gate" and not "cradle-to-grave", wherein a more representative and holistic environmental impact can be calculated.
Finally editorial issues appear that need to be addressed, typos, graphs' legends etc and especially the citations style which is not consistent throughout the text and it doesn't follow "Coatings" guidelines guidelines where reference numbers should be in the text, placed in square brackets [ ]. Some of these issues can be found in the revised .pdf)
More comments and suggestions are found annotated on the revised .pdf
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your prompt assessment of the article and elaboration of the review, we really appreciate your time you have elaborated. We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI.
Typos and other formal errors lower the level of each document. We have tried to thoroughly check the whole article and fix the errors. We have added italics for Latin names as recommended. We have unified the terminology. The Materials and Methods section has been revised, duplicate information removed. In the article we use the Latin name: Picea Abies L. The Siberian spriune was an inconsistency in the English translation. Edits have been made throughout the text of the article. Lines 225, 284
Line 35, 36, 40, 79, 90-95, 132, 158, 225, 259-263
We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI. We have informed the publisher about the need for English language proofreading. The publisher has expressed understanding and agreement.
Title
The title is considered that doesn't reflect the content of the paper, as LCA was implemented on thermally modified wood (A1-A3, B1, B2) and on coated wood (B1, B2). No LCA analysis has been implemented on natural wood (without any surface treatment) especially during the use stage (B3, B4) witch is the most problematic for natural wood.
Therefore, it is considered that the word "natural" should be replaced with "coated" wood, unless natural wood (wood without any treatment, at any stage of its life), will be included in the paper. If this short of wood wont' be included, it is suggested to revise the title.
Some examples:
"Life Cycle Assessment of coated and thermally modified wooden facades"
"Assessing the environment impact of coated and heat-treated facades via LCA"
"A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of surface coated and thermally modified wooden building facades"
Thank you for your comment. We have supplemented and modified the title of the article to provide better information about the content of the article. „Life Cycle assessment of coated and thermally modified softwood façades.“
Abstract
An abstract should present info including, the background, the methodology followed, the results obtained and the respective conclusions drown.
The present abstract doesn't present this info, except the background which justifies the purpose of the study. This info should be included and thus it is recommended that the abstract should be rewritten.
Thank you for your comment. In the abstract we added information about standard procedures, obtained results and basic conclusions of implemented simulations. See 17-26
Introduction
The introduction is considerer extremely long and it is not supported by the necessary citations. The LCA methodology is well-known so a brief description of LCA with appropriate citations would have been sufficient. Many unnecessary info are provided, however, other important aspects of LCA are not mentioned or defined, including the life cycle stages (product, construction process, use stage etc) or the LCA models "from cradle to gate" etc. Basic terms and definitions of LCA stages, models etc should appear and clarified before M&M and not at M&M where the reader is informed on the adopted methodology.
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the instruction was considered extremely long.
We have adjusted the inappropriate sentence lengths, Line 71 to 80 is one sentence. One sentece in line 71 to 80 is revised. Lines 95-102
We have removed duplicate and obvious information about LCA. The length of the introduction is not significantly reduced. We have added the recommended citations with the necessary information. See lines 61-65 ( Standars with infomation about wood use classes and classes of natural wood durability and the requirement for soft wood paneling and glading according to EN 14519).
Lines 42-45 Studies suggest that construction is moving toward wood for lower cost and improved carbon emissions when compared to steel and concrete.
Other added citations (possibly standards) see lines 52, 61-65, 76-78, 104-108, 109-111, 142-144, 176-180, 192-193, 203-211
We've shortened the LCA description, removed the obvious information. We added that in buildings the life cycle is divided into five stages. See lines 90-94
We described in more detail the selected category "cradle-to-gate with options" of LCA in the 30 years-horizon of use. Supported by citations. See Lines 148-157, reference [14]
We have expanded the discussion on coatings. We have supplemented the data that led us to the choice of coatings for the article. See. Lines 192-211
The proposal to supplement the technical drawing are the structure of the facade will improve the readability and clarity of the article. See Figure 1: Example of wooden façades of boarding house in Demänová, Slovakia and wooden structure of the exterior wall (assessed composition). (Source: authors). Line 219
Materials and methods
This section is also extremely long and many parts are repeated at several points.
It is rather confusing why there are two sections "The following methodology was set to meet the objectives" and "The following methods were selected for the assessment" and why these two sections are not merged.
In general the whole section is considered complicated not only to the multiple repetition but also because important info on the basic terms and definitions of LCA stages, models etc are still not explained (tables 1 and 2 appear at the end of the section without been embedded in the text).
Nonetheless the most important problem of materials and methods is identified on the adopted methodology.
More specifically a) it is not justified why LCA "end of life stage" (C), was excluded from this study especially for alkyd coated wood of which the waist processing and disposal has an environmental impact and for thermally modified wood of which the biodegradability may change after heat-treatment; b) It is not explained why for the "coated" wood (where three different surface coatings were used) their environmental impact during "product stage" of LCA (A1-A3) hasn't been calculated and; c) why if authors aimed to implement LCA on natural wooden facades, didn't include natural wood without any surface treatment and calculate the environmental burden of maintenance, repair, replacement (B1-B3) during LCA "use stage".
It is considered that the LCA methodology for the calculation of the environmental impact of coated wood and thermal modified wood, should include the "product stage" (A), the construction process stage (B) and the "end of life stage" (C). If authors believe that stage C, is not important this should be explain and justify. Finally, if authors wish to include natural wood, (without any surface treatment), then the LCA should be also calculated for all stages A, B and possibly C too.
Thank you for your comment about the methods section. We have incorporated the comments. Bullets and duplicate information have been removed, we make the section more transparent. Line 222
We have supplemented the citations of the study, which declares that ThermoWood material has a minimal service life of 30 years. Lines 153-156
We have added cross-references for tables to the text - Table 1. (Used surface treatments for façades with thermally-treated (marks TWF) and natural wood (marks NWF) – frequency of use for use stage B1-B2) and Table 2. (Scope of the LCA, system limit information.) lines 240, 277 for Tab.1, 231, 322 for Tab.2.
We supported the discussion and selection of coatings with documents and citations. See. 203-211, reference [20,211]
We supported the simulations in Simapro (with the purchased Ecoinvent 3 database) with references. We have added references that shows Simapro program is a leading software. See Lines 104-108.
According to the standard EN 15804+A1: The second type of EPD is “cradle to gate with options”, which includes all the information relevant for the first type plus other optional information for the end of life stage such as impacts during demolition and waste disposal stages. The mentioned methodology "cradle to gate with options" is also applied for environmental assessment of selected wooden facades with selected surface coatings. The “End of life stage” module was not considered in the LCA scenario. The decision-making process was based on the manufacturer's declared maintenance-free life for thermally treated wood. The Finnish manufacturer states a value of 30 years. Therefore, we focused on the modules "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage". It was assumed that if the wooden structure is not mechanically damaged and is regularly serviced, it is probably not necessary to define “repair (B3) and replacement (B4)” during the considered 30 years. Lines 90-94, 321-325
Results
Results are clearly presented, however some graph's captions and legends need to be corrected (see the pdf revised ms).
Thank you for your comment. We looked at the attached document. The attached document was very helpful. We have incorporated comments throughout the article. have incorporated the comments.
We have added a new figure with a comment to the Result and discussion section. Marked as Figure 3. Comparing „Product stage“ for functional unit FU (1m2) of façade elements made of thermally treated and natural wood with used surface treatments in the following stages by EPD method (2018) V1.01. TWF – Thermally treated wood façade, NWF – Naturel wood façade. Lines 404-407, 410
We have specified the descriptions of all the figures in the article. See. 423, 439, 443, 447
Conclusions
It is considered that conclusions are supported by the obtained results, however conclusions would be more vigorous and advantageous for heat-treated wood if a) the surface coatings' production impact was included in the "product stage" LCA (A1-A3 for coatings) and b) controls (natural wood without any treatment at all), has been included in the study and the "use" stage ( B1- B4) was calculated.
Moreover as end of life stage (C) is not included is recommended to be more reluctant when stating the LCA implemention on heat treated wood causes less environmental impact as the work is based on "cradle-to-gate" and not "cradle-to-grave", wherein a more representative and holistic environmental impact can be calculated.
Finally editorial issues appear that need to be addressed, typos, graphs' legends etc and especially the citations style which is not consistent throughout the text and it doesn't follow "Coatings" guidelines guidelines where reference numbers should be in the text, placed in square brackets [ ]. Some of these issues can be found in the revised .pdf)
Thank you for your comment. The “End of life stage” module was not considered in the LCA scenario. The decision-making process was based on the manufacturer's declared maintenance-free life for thermally treated wood. The Finnish manufacturer states a value of 30 years. Therefore, we focused on the modules "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage".
It was assumed that if the wooden structure is not mechanically damaged and is regularly serviced, it is probably not necessary to define “repair (B3) and replacement (B4)” during the considered 30 years. See lines 148-157
We tried to reformulate the conclusions. We emphasized that the conclusions apply - for a 30-year horizon - to "cradle-to-gate with options." In further research, it would certainly be interesting to focus on the whole life cycle, to implement "cradle-to-grave".
Yours sincerely
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
It is a valuable study, but in my opinion, it requires a lot of corrections, which I present in synthetic form.
General editing comments:
1) There are quite a lot of typing errors (typos) in the text, in the particular notation of upper and lower indexes and punctuation marks. The entire text, including the captions of the drawings, requires careful checking in this regard.
e.g.: Line: 108, 109, 110, 339, 342, 343, 363, 364, 365, 373, 377, 381, 401, 428, 429, 433, 434 (writing errors in notation of upper and lower indexes);
Line: 168, 197, 218, 251, 312, 424 (no full stop at the end of the sentence);
Line: 147, 318, 332, 334, 347, 363, 433, 487, 496, 497, 498, 500 (wrong characters or spaces).
2) The method of citing other articles is wrong and not in accordance with the requirements. Ultimately, the cited works should be changed to numbers in the order in which they are cited.
e.g. Line 31
not (Nôta 2016) but [1]
(Nôta 2016) was missing in references too (Line 489)
Line 38
not (Linkosami, Laine and Rautkari 2015) but [2]
e.t.c.
The list of literature (in References) requires the unification of the order in the notation in accordance with the requirements.
Other comments:
Title
Line 2
The title of the article is too general. In my opinion, it should be clarified:
Natural and thermally modified softwood façades regarding Life Cycle Assessment
Line 5
The name of the Department is missing and the e-mail address ([email protected]) is redundant.
Keywords
Line 18
The article should be supplemented with keywords
Introduction
Lines 45-57
I think this is a good place to add information about wood use classes and classes of natural wood durability in relation to EN 335 and EN 350 standards and the requirements for softwood paneling and cladding according to EN 14519 and EN 15146.
Lines 71-146
The LCA description is too extensive, it should be abbreviated. Too much obvious information has been given here.
Materials and methods
Line 243
The full Latin name of the investigated wood species should be given.
Siberian spruce (Picea obovata Ledeb.)
Line 244-251
I suggest supplementing the article with a technical drawing showing the faҫade structure. It would definitely improve readability.
There is no full compliance with the information of investigated wood material:
Line 243 Siberian spruce
Line 256 Siberian spruce (Nordic Spruce)
Line 315 Nordic Spruce and Picea Abies L.
In its natural European habitat (Scandinavia), Siberian spruce forms independent hybrids (P. x fennica) with Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst). What kind of spruce in this article are you talking about?
Conclusion
Line 444
is: as expected …
and should be: As expected …
Between the lines 465-468
Only Funding is given.
According to the requirements of the publishing house (Coatings Journal), relevant information should be placed between Conclusions and References: Author Contributions, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement Conflicts of Interest.
Line 467
is: Technical university in Zvolen
and should be: Technical University in Zvolen
References
The list includes only 17 items. I propose to supplement it with some important standards:
EN 335:2013 Durability of wood and wood-based products – Use classes: definitions, application to solid wood and wood-based products.
EN 350:2016 Durability of wood and wood-products – Testing and classification of the durability to biological agents of wood and wood-based materials
EN 14519:2005 Solid softwood panelling and cladding - Machined profiles with tongue and groove.
EN 15146:2006 Solid softwood panelling and cladding - Machined profiles without tongue and groove.
Lines 504-505
The information contained here is a duplicate of Funding and should be removed.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your prompt assessment of the article and elaboration of the review, we really appreciate your time you have elaborated. We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI.
General editing comments:
1) There are quite a lot of typing errors (typos) in the text, in the particular notation of upper and lower indexes and punctuation marks. The entire text, including the captions of the drawings, requires careful checking in this regard.
e.g.: Line: 108, 109, 110, 339, 342, 343, 363, 364, 365, 373, 377, 381, 401, 428, 429, 433, 434 (writing errors in notation of upper and lower indexes);
Line: 168, 197, 218, 251, 312, 424 (no full stop at the end of the sentence);
Line: 147, 318, 332, 334, 347, 363, 433, 487, 496, 497, 498, 500 (wrong characters or spaces).
Line 444
is: as expected …
and should be: As expected …
Line 467
is: Technical university in Zvolen
and should be: Technical University in Zvolen
Thank you for your comment. Typos and other formal errors lower the level of each document. We have tried to thoroughly check the whole article and fix the errors. We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI. We have informed the publisher about the need for English language proofreading. The publisher has expressed understanding and agreement.
2) The method of citing other articles is wrong and not in accordance with the requirements. Ultimately, the cited works should be changed to numbers in the order in which they are cited.
e.g. Line 31
not (Nôta 2016) but [1]
(Nôta 2016) was missing in references too (Line 489)
Line 38
not (Linkosami, Laine and Rautkari 2015) but [2]
e.t.c.
The list of literature (in References) requires the unification of the order in the notation in accordance with the requirements.
Thank you for your comment. We have adjusted the citations (both in the text and in the references) in accordance with the publisher's requirements. Lines 554 -624
Other comments:
Title
Line 2
The title of the article is too general. In my opinion, it should be clarified: Natural and thermally modified softwood façades regarding Life Cycle Assessment
Thank you for your comment. We have supplemented and modified the title of the article to provide better information about the content of the article. „Life Cycle assessment of coated and thermally modified softwood façades.“
Line 5
The name of the Department is missing and the e-mail address ([email protected]) is redundant.
Thank you for your comment. We have added the name of the Department. We have removed the e-mail address ([email protected]). See lines 5-7
Keywords
Line 18
The article should be supplemented with keywords
Thank you for your comment. We have added the name of the Department. Line 28
Introduction
Lines 45-57
I think this is a good place to add information about wood use classes and classes of natural wood durability in relation to EN 335 and EN 350 standards and the requirements for softwood paneling and cladding according to EN 14519 and EN 15146.
References
The list includes only 17 items. I propose to supplement it with some important standards:
EN 335:2013 Durability of wood and wood-based products – Use classes: definitions, application to solid wood and wood-based products.
EN 350:2016 Durability of wood and wood-products – Testing and classification of the durability to biological agents of wood and wood-based materials
EN 14519:2005 Solid softwood panelling and cladding - Machined profiles with tongue and groove.
EN 15146:2006 Solid softwood panelling and cladding - Machined profiles without tongue and groove.
Thank you for your comment. The above comments are interrelated. We would like to combine these comments into one part. We completely agree, the number of references is lower. We have added recommended references. In the text of the article, see lines 60-64 and in the References section, Lines 554 -624.
Lines 71-146
The LCA description is too extensive, it should be abbreviated. Too much obvious information has been given here.
Thank you for your comment. We have shortened the LCA description section. We have shortened too much obvious information about LCA. e removed duplicate and obvious information that was irrelevant to the article. Lines 95-103, 130-170
Materials and methods
Line 243
The full Latin name of the investigated wood species should be given.
Siberian spruce (Picea obovata Ledeb.)
There is no full compliance with the information of investigated wood material:
Line 243 Siberian spruce
Line 256 Siberian spruce (Nordic Spruce)
Line 315 Nordic Spruce and Picea Abies L.
In its natural European habitat (Scandinavia), Siberian spruce forms independent hybrids (P. x fennica) with Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst). What kind of spruce in this article are you talking about?
Thank you for your comment. We would like to combine the answers to these questions. We have unified the terminology. In the article we use the Latin name: Picea Abies L. The Siberian spriune was an inconsistency in the English translation. Edits have been made throughout the text of the article. Lines 225, 284
Line 244-251
I suggest supplementing the article with a technical drawing showing the faҫade structure. It would definitely improve readability.
Thank you for your comment. The proposal to supplement the technical drawing are the structure of the facade will improve the readability and clarity of the article. See Figure 1: Example of wooden façades of boarding house in Demänová, Slovakia and wooden structure of the exterior wall (assessed composition). (Source: authors). Line 219
Between the lines 465-468
Only Funding is given.
According to the requirements of the publishing house (Coatings Journal), relevant information should be placed between Conclusions and References: Author Contributions, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement Conflicts of Interest.
Thank you for your comment. From the sources available to us, we have modified and supplemented the required information according to the requirements of the MDPI publishing house and the provided template. Lines 542-553
Lines 504-505
The information contained here is a duplicate of Funding and should be removed.
Thank you for your comment. Duplicate of Funding information has been removed. Lines 552-553
Yours sincerely
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
For the coating audience, it would be nice to have a picture showing what a wooden façade looks like.
I guess “surface treatment” means coatings. The authors need to discuss more how this is a coatings paper… since the name of the journal is coatings.
Line 71 to 80 is one sentence. I have never seen something the size of a paragraph be one sentence. You need to revise.
Line 85 – You need to also point out that construction is moving toward wood for lower costs and improved carbon emissions when compared to steel and concrete - Forest Products Journal 71 (2): 111–123. These days, costs, environment, society, and engineering/strength all play a role in LCA. Line 88 also talks about inventory analysis and the paper above should be referenced for that as well. Note that the paper is not associated with my group or colleagues.
There is no discussion about LCA in coatings. This is the coatings journal.
The references do not contain any forest products type journals? This is highly unusual and is the most likely place to find out about thermal wood.
The methods do not need to be reported into bullet points.
Line 188 – reference a study that shows Sigmapro is a leading software. I have seen studies.
Define the term ….cradle to gate with options
The surface treatment discussion does not really get talked about until line 316. The article needs to discuss coatings more.
Figure 1 is faded.
Figure 2 is faded.
All of them are faded.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your prompt assessment of the article and elaboration of the review, we really appreciate your time you have elaborated. We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI.
For the coating audience, it would be nice to have a picture showing what a wooden façade looks like.
Thank you for your comment. The proposal to supplement the technical drawing are the structure of the facade will improve the readability and clarity of the article. See Figure 1: Example of wooden façades of boarding house in Demänová, Slovakia and wooden structure of the exterior wall (assessed composition). (Source: authors). Line 219
I guess “surface treatment” means coatings. The authors need to discuss more how this is a coatings paper… since the name of the journal is coatings.
There is no discussion about LCA in coatings. This is the coatings journal.
The surface treatment discussion does not really get talked about until line 316. The article needs to discuss coatings more.
Thank you for your comment. The above comments relate to additional information on the coatings used. We would like to combine these comments into one part.
Your idea that "surface treatment" means coatings is correct. We have included under the term treatment greing removal, oil app. and paint coat. There was really little talk about paints, with a focus on the journal's focus. We have added in the introduction sections on surface treatments. Reasons why they are needed, what they prevent, how they protect the structure. See Intudction of article. Lines 175 – 211, 537-540.
Simulations in the Simapro program have shown that the heat treatment of wood has a significant impact on the environment at the product stage. The thermally treated facade without treatment is the facade with probably the lowest environmental impact of use stage in the 30-year time horizon. The treatment used, the coatings used and the frequency of their application play an important role in the environmental impact. We also added a separate graph and discussion for the production process of used treatments (coatings). See. Figure 3. Comparing „Product stage“ for functional unit FU (1m2) of façade elements made of thermally treated and natural wood with used surface treatments in the following stages by EPD method (2018) V1.01. TWF – Thermally treated wood façade, NWF – Naturel wood façade.Here we also added a discussion about the coatings used in the "Product stage". We also added environmental impacts in the conclusions. We have expanded the conclussion. Lines 404-407
Line 71 to 80 is one sentence. I have never seen something the size of a paragraph be one sentence. You need to revise.
Thank you for your comment. One sentece in line 71 to 80 is revised. Lines 95-102
The references do not contain any forest products type journals? This is highly unusual and is the most likely place to find out about thermal wood.
Thank you for your comment. Thanks for pointing to the Forest Product Journal. From the sources available to us, we selected and emphasized the need for buildings with a improved carbon emisions. Lines 42-45, 155-162, 189-206.
Line 188 – reference a study that shows Sigmapro is a leading software. I have seen studies.
Simulations in the Simapro program have shown that the heat treatment of wood has a significant impact on the environment at the product stage. The thermally treated facade without treatment is the facade with probably the lowest environmental impact of use stage in the 30-year time horizon. The treatment used, the coatings used and the frequency of their application play an important role in the environmental impact.
We have added information about the Simapro program as the leading software Lines 104-108.
The references do not contain any forest products type journals? This is highly unusual and is the most likely place to find out about thermal wood.
Thank you for your comment. From the sources available to us, we looked at the recommended types of journals, within the possibilities, time and availability. As part of our capabilities, we have added information regarding heat-thermal treatment. Sources of information about heat-treated wood in connection with the environmental impact for selected stages, which are crucial for us, were not so complex and complete as from the mentioned Finnish manufacturer. Lines 307-311
The methods do not need to be reported into bullet points.
Thank you for your comment about the methods section. Bullets and duplicate information have been removed, we make the section more transparent. Line 222
Define the term ….cradle to gate with options
Thank you for your comment. According to the standard EN 15804+A1: The second type of EPD is “cradle to gate with options”, which includes all the information relevant for the first type plus other optional information for the end of life stage such as impacts during demolition and waste disposal stages. The mentioned methodology "cradle to gate with options" is also applied for environmental assessment of selected wooden facades with selected surface coatings. The “End of life stage” module was not considered in the LCA scenario. The decision-making process was based on the manufacturer's declared maintenance-free life for thermally treated wood. The Finnish manufacturer states a value of 30 years. Therefore, we focused on the modules "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage". It was assumed that if the wooden structure is not mechanically damaged and is regularly serviced, it is probably not necessary to define “repair (B3) and replacement (B4)” during the considered 30 years. Lines 90-94, 321-325
The “End of life stage” module was not considered in the LCA scenario. The decision-making process was based on the manufacturer's declared maintenance-free life for thermally treated wood. The Finnish manufacturer states a value of 30 years. Therefore, we focused on the modules "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage".
It was assumed that if the wooden structure is not mechanically damaged and is regularly serviced, it is probably not necessary to define “repair (B3) and replacement (B4)” during the considered 30 years.
The study defines a minimum of several thermal wood lives of 30 years. Reference: [14] JONES, D., et al. The commercialisation of ThermoWood® products (Doc. No. IRG/WP 06-40339). International Research Group on Wood Preservation, 2006. Lines 155-157
All of them are faded. (Figure 1 is faded., Figure 2 is faded.)
Thanks for the recommendations regarding formal editing of graphs and images. We have adjusted the clearer images.
Yours sincerely
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
It is considered that the paper has been greatly improved compared to the previous version. However, several aspects still need to be addressed.
Title
The title has been improved and it is now more representative of the content of the paper
Abstract
The abstract has been improved, nonetheless terms such as “natural wood” hasn’t been replaced by coated wood in order to be consistent with the title. Moreover the purpose it is not well defined. The methodology has been now amended, however results and conclusions are not well written.
Introduction
Introduction is still rather confusing as it is not clear which part is referring to the theory behind the work and which part corresponds to the methodology adopted. Thus, the section is like a mixture of theoretical aspects with materials and methods.
Moreover, several points are mentioned more than ones at different parts of the section, giving the impression of back and forth. Changing from one subject to another and then returning to the former appears like a repetition, thus the writing doesn’t flow and the reader gets confused.
The Introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important in order to be comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper. Moreover the purpose of the work and its significance, should very well defined. In contrast Materials and Methods should describe just the methodology adopted with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the presented results. Well-established methods should be only mentioned and appropriately cited.
Therefore, it is recommended that introduction should be rewritten in such a way that will provide only the theoretical background that the reader needs for understanding the methodology followed. The English must be improved because often it is very difficult to understand the meaning of sentences. Moreover, it is recommended that scientific terminology from other fields (i.e. wood science) to be used after consultation with specialists.
Materials and Methods
Similarly, to Introduction this section also includes many theoretical parts. There is also a mention on Results (figure 9). Figures, tables, references etc must be numbered in order of appearance in the text
The terminology used also creates misunderstanding as the word “treatment” is applied for both “thermal modification” and “surface maintenance techniques”.
Thus it is recommended to consider using with consistency other terms for “surface treatments” such as “surface maintenance techniques”, “surface protection”, “surface preservation”, “surface preservation methods“ etc . These terms should though be consistent with the Results section too.
It is considered that the structure of the section also needs to be revised. It would be probably beneficial for the work, to follow the “general to specific approach for the methodology adopted. Meaning that firstly the scenarios followed should be mentioned along with the basic tools of LCA, EN 15804 A1 cradle to gate, EPD, SimaPro pro, Econivent 3 database, etc, then the materials selected i.e. profile and dimension of applied wooden façade cladding, wood species and type of wood, thermal treatment of wood, etc and finally the surface protection methods assessed (sanding, paint combination of sanding and oil etc )
Finally, tables in Materials and Methods are not placed where they should be (near the lines where are first mentioned).
Results and Discussion
In this section also, aspects of Materials and Methods are mentioned. Figures’ data are not properly presented and figures 5-7 are not mentioned in the text. Graphs legends are not consistent with the text
It is recommended to rework this section and provide a concise and precise description of the results by presenting first what the graphs show and then attempt to interpret them so that conclusions would be possible to be drawn.
Any change made on the terminology used in materials and methods (i.e. natural wood) should be adopted also in the Results and Discussion section and the respective graphs.
Conclusions
The section beside the amendment on the production stage of surface coatings is almost the same with the previous version. The main key findings are presented. Future research directions may also be mentioned. English editing is considered necessary.
Beside these comments, several remarks and suggestions are annotated on the .pdf of the revised manuscript of the second round.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your prompt assessment of the article and elaboration of the review, we really appreciate your time you have elaborated.
We do not consider review from you as a critique, but as quality mentoring. Your comments have helped improve the article.
We have incorporated comments from all reviews. Please see the attachment where the reworked article is uploaded.
Title
The title has been improved and it is now more representative of the content of the paper
Thanks for the observation.
Abstract
The abstract has been improved, nonetheless terms such as “natural wood” hasn’t been replaced by coated wood in order to be consistent with the title. Moreover the purpose it is not well defined. The methodology has been now amended, however results and conclusions are not well written.
Thank you for your comments. Step by step, we have incorporated your comments into an abstract. We believe that abstrackt is clearer and more logical.
Introduction
Introduction is still rather confusing as it is not clear which part is referring to the theory behind the work and which part corresponds to the methodology adopted. Thus, the section is like a mixture of theoretical aspects with materials and methods.
Moreover, several points are mentioned more than ones at different parts of the section, giving the impression of back and forth. Changing from one subject to another and then returning to the former appears like a repetition, thus the writing doesn’t flow and the reader gets confused.
The Introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important in order to be comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper. Moreover the purpose of the work and its significance, should very well defined. In contrast Materials and Methods should describe just the methodology adopted with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the presented results. Well-established methods should be only mentioned and appropriately cited.
Therefore, it is recommended that introduction should be rewritten in such a way that will provide only the theoretical background that the reader needs for understanding the methodology followed. The English must be improved because often it is very difficult to understand the meaning of sentences. Moreover, it is recommended that scientific terminology from other fields (i.e. wood science) to be used after consultation with specialists.
Materials and Methods
Similarly, to Introduction this section also includes many theoretical parts. There is also a mention on Results (figure 9). Figures, tables, references etc must be numbered in order of appearance in the text
The terminology used also creates misunderstanding as the word “treatment” is applied for both “thermal modification” and “surface maintenance techniques”.
Thus it is recommended to consider using with consistency other terms for “surface treatments” such as “surface maintenance techniques”, “surface protection”, “surface preservation”, “surface preservation methods“ etc . These terms should though be consistent with the Results section too.
It is considered that the structure of the section also needs to be revised. It would be probably beneficial for the work, to follow the “general to specific approach for the methodology adopted. Meaning that firstly the scenarios followed should be mentioned along with the basic tools of LCA, EN 15804 A1 cradle to gate, EPD, SimaPro pro, Econivent 3 database, etc, then the materials selected i.e. profile and dimension of applied wooden façade cladding, wood species and type of wood, thermal treatment of wood, etc and finally the surface protection methods assessed (sanding, paint combination of sanding and oil etc )
Finally, tables in Materials and Methods are not placed where they should be (near the lines where are first mentioned).
Thank you for your comments.
We would like to combine the reactions focused on the Introduction section and the Materials and Methods section into one whole.
We have divided the theoretical aspects into Introduction and information on the materials and methods used into the Materials and Methods section. We have incorporated all the comments from the reviews. We have adjusted the order of the information offered so that the related information is not shuffled and confusing. We tried to write fluently. We introduced the broader context of the information in the introduction. We emphasized the reasons for the study.
After consulting with specialists, we adapted the scientific terminology.
In the Materials and Methods section, we described the accepted methodology. We've organized related information. We have logically arranged the above sections. Thank you for the detailed instructions.
Results and Discussion
In this section also, aspects of Materials and Methods are mentioned. Figures’ data are not properly presented and figures 5-7 are not mentioned in the text. Graphs legends are not consistent with the text
It is recommended to rework this section and provide a concise and precise description of the results by presenting first what the graphs show and then attempt to interpret them so that conclusions would be possible to be drawn.
Any change made on the terminology used in materials and methods (i.e. natural wood) should be adopted also in the Results and Discussion section and the respective graphs.
Conclusions
The section beside the amendment on the production stage of surface coatings is almost the same with the previous version. The main key findings are presented. Future research directions may also be mentioned. English editing is considered necessary.
Thank you for your comments.
We would like to combine the reactions focused on the Results and Discussion section and the Conclusions section into one whole.
We have removed the aspect of Materials and Methods from the Result and Discussion section. We have added a description of the result. According to the attached comments, we have modified this section. We supplemented the descriptions of the graphs, the description of the results and we tried to interpret the results.
We have adjusted the conclusion according to the recommendations. We replaced the word "natural" with the word "coated" wood, "natural" facade with a non-heat-treaded facade. This adjustment was necessary and the whole article is clearer. "End of life stage" (C) was excluded from this study. We focused on "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage" in trouhgout 30 years time horizon. We wanted to pay close attention to these stages. It would certainly be interesting to expand the study in future research.
We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI. The publisher recommended the offered paid English proofreading after accepting the article.
Yours sincerely
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
na
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
We have removed the aspect of Materials and Methods from the Result and Discussion section. We have added a description of the result. According to the attached comments, we have modified this section. We supplemented the descriptions of the graphs, the description of the results and we tried to interpret the results.
We have adjusted the conclusion according to the recommendations. We replaced the word "natural" with the word "coated" wood, "natural" facade with a non-heat-treaded facade. This adjustment was necessary and the whole article is clearer. "End of life stage" (C) was excluded from this study. We focused on "Product stage", "Construction process stage" and "Use stage" in trouhgout 30 years time horizon. We wanted to pay close attention to these stages. It would certainly be interesting to expand the study in future research.
We are aware of our level of English. We want to move our article to English Correction - a professional English editing service by MDPI. The publisher recommended the offered paid English proofreading after accepting the article.
Yours sincerely
Authors
