Environmental Impact of Wood Modification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript analyse more published data of the environmental product declarations (EPDs) and the embodied energy (EE) from several sources of literature, comparing them for the unmodified, thermally modified and chemically modified woods – at which one its part deals about effects of coatings on the life time of wood products, as well. 

The manuscript is well written by professional scientists. Maybe for the Coating – MDPI journal should be more place given to coatings used for painting of unmodified and modified woods.

The maintenance re-coating period (Table 8) for TMT was 2-times longer (10-years) as for uncoated timber (5-year) – is it suitable in practice ?

Line 463: There is probably mistake: “… unmodified and unmodified wood.” 

Finally, the manuscript I can recommend for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment REFEREE 1

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the environmental impact of various wood modification technologies is assessed. The subject of the manuscript is interesting and important but according to my opinion does not lie within the scope of “Coatings” journal. I would suggest submission of the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.

Author Response

Please see attachment REFEREE 2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

„Environmental impact of wood modification” is an interesting paper in which authors assess the environmental impact of various unmodified and modified wood products based on the available data. They skilfully explain the complicated issues related to the topic, eliminate the data which seem not credible from their further calculations, and present the existing deficiencies in the methods for estimating the environmental impact of natural materials. As a result, a reader gets a thorough report on the overall environmental effect (that is possible to assess at this moment) of wood modification.

I have a few comments on the text:

• Line 140 – „Materials and Methods” - please change the format.
• Lines 142–156 – these are the guidelines for authors. Please remove this part.
• Table 1 – please correct the caption (start the sentence with a capital letter).
• Tables 2 and 3 – please explain the descriptions and abbreviations used in the tables (TOTAL (reported); Sequestered – what does it mean? What is the unit?; PERE; PENRE, PERM?
• It is hard for a reader to understand all the data presented in Tables 2 and 3. Perhaps some additional graphs (like in Figure 1) could be more readable and helpful here?
• Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 – perhaps the graphs will be more readable for readers.
• Figure 2 – there should be “carbon” instead of “caron” in the table caption.
• I suggest adding a straightforward conclusion answering the question if wood modification provides true environmental benefits.

Author Response

Please see attachment REFEREE 3

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tried to make changes. I think that the scope now marginally fits the scope of the journal. Nevertheless, I suggest acceptance of the work in its present form.