Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work lacks scientific sound but it can be amended with additional works.

1. Full characterization of the produced nanoparticles showeed be inserted, TiO2 nanoparticles, TEM, SEM, EDX, FTIR, Zeta potential,

2. All figures and tables lack the correct statistical analysis, where are the comparisons among means.

3. What is the mechanism of TiO2 nanoparticles in coating this wood?

4. How did you identify this wood, where is the anatomical structure of this wood, and what is the type of vessels?

5. Why CT10 is the best.

6. Hwo did you preapre 1% (CT1), 5% (CT5), and 10% (CT10) (b). /v.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor errors

Author Response

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much for your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article.  I have included some information considering your ideas and made some corrections for the grammatical errors.  The corrected parts are indicated by red color.  I am pleased to provide you some clarifications referring on your comments.

 

Reviewer 1

This work lacks scientific sound but it can be amended with additional works.

 

Q : Full characterization of the produced nanoparticles showed be inserted, TiO2 nanoparticles, TEM, SEM, EDX, FTIR, Zeta potential,

A : Characterization of TiO₂ nanoparticles successfully synthesized by hydrothermal methods has been published in the Polymers MDPI journal with the title Physical Properties of Fast-Growing Wood-Polymer Nano Composite Synthesized through TiO₂ Nanoparticle Impregnation (https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204463). XRD characterization results show that TiO₂ nanoparticles have anatase phase with 99.86% crystallinity degree and 79.17 nm crystal size. FTIR analysis results show the presence of Ti-O functional groups at wave number 545 cm^-1 and Ti-O-Ti at wave number 802 cm-1, which is a bond formed in the framework of TiO₂ compounds. The results of characterization of optical properties with UV Vis Spectrophotometer showed a maximum wavelength of 362 nm and band gap energy of 3.4 eV. SEM EDX characterization results show uniform morphology and chemical composition with high purity although agglomeration occurs so that the observed size becomes larger. We did not conduct TEM testing because for the determination of the crystal structure, we used the elucidation method from the diffractogram of the XRD analysis results and then elucidated with QualX software and visualized with Mercury software. The crystal structure elucidation results show that TiO₂ nanoparticles have a body-centered tetragonal crystal structure, lattice parameters a = b = 3.782 and c = 9.502, and space group I 41/amd. The results of the particle size analyzer (PSA) analysis along with the zeta potential values have been added to this revised article in the page 5 line 210 to 226.

 

Q : All figures and tables lack the correct statistical analysis, where are the comparisons among means.

A : The statistical analysis has added on the charts to characterize the parameter color changes (L, a, and b value), total color changes, surface roughness, equilibrium contact angle, and K-value.

 

Q : What is the mechanism of TiO₂ nanoparticles in coating this wood?

A : The mechanism of TiO2 nanoparticles in the coating process on wood is the formation of a layer on the surface of the wood from the deposition of suspended particles. In this case, the particles that precipitate remain on the surface so it is necessary to test the hydrophobicity and photocatalyst activity to determine the effectiveness of the coating process with active compounds of TiO₂ nanoparticles on both water and oil-based finishing materials. (This statement was added in the line 460 to 465)

Q : How did you identify this wood, where is the anatomical structure of this wood, and what is the type of vessels?

A : The wood samples originated from plantation forest manged by Perhutani (a state-owned enterprise) and the mangium trees have been verified by Perhutani. Anatomical structure has been added in the introduction part (page 1 line 31 to 33)

 

Q : Why CT10 is the best.

A : The total colour change of CT10 presented the lowest value, which indicate that the high concentration of TiO2 nanoparticles could protect the magium wood against weathering factors. Moreover, photocatalyst analysis shows that the concentration of active compound TiO2 nanoparticles had the highest photocatalyst activity with an indication of the highest percentage value of methylene blue degradation but it had the lowest energy consumption value. In addition, FTIR analysis showed a decreased hydroxy functional group ratio index. This indicates that the surface of the wood became more hydrophobic and this correlated with decreased water activity so that microbes which are the cause of wood degradation are not easy to grow.

 

Q : Hwo did you preapre 1% (CT1), 5% (CT5), and 10% (CT10) (b). /v.

A : The coating material (CT) solution made from a mixture of TiO₂ nanoparticles and oil-based varnish (V1) and water (V2) was made with a concentration of 1, 5 and 10% w/v, which means there are 1, 5 and 10 grams of TiO₂ nanoparticles in 100 ml of CT solution. Preparation of CT solution is done by weighing carefully as much as 1, 5 and 10 grams of TiO₂ nanoparticles and then dissolved in oil-based varnish (V1) and water (V2) 100 ml and measured to 100 ml in a measuring flask. The CT solution was homogenized for 30 minutes with a sonicator. The solution was ready to be applied for coating on wood. (page 3 line 112-115)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest writing about the ecological aspects of the analyzed solutions of coatings (nanoparticles) in the introduction part.

It is necessary to perform linguistic corrections, standardize e.g. in terms of the tense used (future, past).

Color tests are widely studied. In the methodology, it is enough to provide the ISO standard.

Results

The drawings require changes

The charts could be more diverse to make it easier to draw conclusions.

Fig 2 needs higher resolution

I don't understand why sometimes the standard deviation is marked on the charts, sometimes not

In 3.1, reference was made to the analysis of variance. I don't see the results of the statistical analysis.

The description in chapter 3 is brief. There is no justification on how the preparations used limit the color change or other properties. However, discoloration in the external environment is not unusual.

The authors should look for scientific justification.

At the same time, the selection of such young trees for research should be justified. After reading the entire article, it is not clear what impact this research has on the use of wood. The importance of the work should be highlighted and what is new should be indicated. There is no new knowledge at this point.

At the same time, you should pay attention to careful language. Currently, there are many linguistic and editorial errors in the text.

The authors should look for scientific justification.

At the same time, the selection of such young trees for research should be justified. After reading the entire article, it is not clear what impact this research has on the use of wood. The importance of the work should be highlighted and what is new should be indicated. There is no new knowledge at this point.

At the same time, you should pay attention to careful language. Currently, there are many linguistic and editorial errors in the text.

Conlusions

They should be more related to the results, they should be understandable, the use of abbreviations makes it difficult to understand.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mixed up tenses in sentences.

Sentences are often complex and difficult to understand.

Author Response

 

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much for your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article. I have included some information considering your ideas and made some corrections for the grammatical errors. The corrected parts are indicated by red color. I am pleased to provide you some clarifications referring on your comments.

 

Reviewer 2

 

Q : I suggest writing about the ecological aspects of the analyzed solutions of coatings (nanoparticles) in the introduction part.

 

A : Thank you for your suggestions. We have added new literatures to more highlight the ecological aspect in the introduction part (page 2 line 71 to 82)

 

Q : It is necessary to perform linguistic corrections, standardize e.g. in terms of the tense used (future, past).

 

A : We have rewritten the manuscript in order to avoid grammatical mistakes.

 

Q : Color tests are widely studied. In the methodology, it is enough to provide the ISO standard.

 

A : In our work, we did not use ISO standard. Color measurement was carried out by CIELab method.

 

Results

 

Q : The drawings require changes

 

A : The drawings have been changed.

 

Q : The charts could be more diverse to make it easier to draw conclusions.

 

A : The charts were changed to make the reader easier to read.

 

Q : Fig 2 needs higher resolution

 

A : The figure 2 has been changed in the higher resolution.

 

Q : I don't understand why sometimes the standard deviation is marked on the charts, sometimes not

 

In 3.1, reference was made to the analysis of variance. I don't see the results of the statistical analysis.

 

A : The statistical analysis was added on the charts to characterize the parameter color changes (L, a, and b value), total color changes, surface roughness, equilibrium contact angle, and K-value.

 

Q : The description in chapter 3 is brief. There is no justification on how the preparations used limit the color change or other properties. However, discoloration in the external environment is not unusual.

 

The authors should look for scientific justification.

 

A : The main background why this study is performed, is triggered by the question “is it possible clear coating wood utilized externally?”. In this study, we tried to mix clear coating and TiO2 nanoparticle. We observed the correlation between the color changes value and TiO2 nanoparticle concentration. And we found out that the higher concentration of TiO2 particle generate the less color change value. In the further research, we are going to apply pre-treatment before nanocoating application to reduce leachability properties.

 

Q : At the same time, the selection of such young trees for research should be justified. After reading the entire article, it is not clear what impact this research has on the use of wood. The importance of the work should be highlighted and what is new should be indicated. There is no new knowledge at this point.

 

A : In our country, mangium wood is widely used due to its similarity with teak wood. Teak wood mostly coated by varnish. Therefore, we hope mangium wood could substitute teak wood.

 

Q : At the same time, you should pay attention to careful language. Currently, there are many linguistic and editorial errors in the text.

 

The authors should look for scientific justification.

 

A : The manuscript was rewritten to reduce the linguistic error.

 

Conlusions

 

Q : They should be more related to the results, they should be understandable, the use of abbreviations makes it difficult to understand.

 

A : The conclusion was rewritten according to the suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the surface modification of fast-growing wood using titanium dioxide-based nanocoating to improve weathering resistance. The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of nanocoating with titanium dioxide nanoparticles on mangium wood against weathering. The researchers used a sol-gel method to synthesize the titanium dioxide nanoparticles and applied them to the wood surface using a dip-coating method. The coated wood samples were then subjected to various tests, including Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FT-IR), colorimetry, and photocatalyst tests. The results showed that the nanocoating significantly improved the weathering resistance of the wood, as evidenced by the reduced color change and weight loss after exposure to UV radiation and moisture. The FT-IR analysis also revealed that the nanocoating formed a protective layer on the wood surface, which prevented the degradation of the wood components. The photocatalyst test further confirmed the effectiveness of the nanocoating in degrading organic pollutants. Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of nanocoating with titanium dioxide nanoparticles as a sustainable and effective method for improving the weathering resistance of fast-growing wood. My main comments are 4: (1) the expressions that appear in the results part should go in the experimental part since they are not deduced by the authors, (2) in the discussion the authors explain why each of them is used and their meaning, but this must go in the experimental part or in the results part in an appropriate way, (3) some parts are too extensive and make the reader get lost in the long explanations. (3) some parts are too long and make the reader get lost in the long explanations, in these cases it works better to use the causal style or cause effect, especially short, and (4) the authors need to explain in the experimental part which ANOVA they use, since they do not indicate it and the conclusions of each ANOVA test are different. 

All my remarks are as follows:

Line 62: Insert "wood".

Line 70: instead of [19], insert author and citation, same comment for line 89.

Line 101: to prevent the units from moving to the next line, use Ctrl + Shift + Space.

Expression (1): use an equation editor to make the square root appear correctly.

Lines 125-131: define the terms in summary form using expressions such as: is the increase of ... during treatment, or similar.

Table 1: put a space between < and > and the numerical values.

Line 138: use the correct units, as the authors have done elsewhere in the text: mm s^-1 (^-1 represents an exponent). The international unit of the second is "s".

Line 142: change "seconds" to "s" and 0.1 seconds to 0.1 s.

Line 158: The definitions should be: Or is... avoid the use of "=".

Lines 158 and 159. Theoretically it seems that the units of expression (2) are s^-1, but it is obvious that t is s^-1 and the angles are also expressed in s^-1. Check and express the units. In the case of t in line 159, it should appear that the units are "s".

Lines 161-167: the SI expression for gram is "g", on the other hand ppm is not a recognised unit, it can be mg/kg or ug/g, minutes are expressed as "min".

Line 169: avoid skipping units (see comment on line 101 and consider in other remarks).

Line 172: write cm-1 superscripts correctly.

Line 180: remove the "=" in front of 5%.

There are several types of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, each of which is used for different purposes. The main types of ANOVA are

One-Way ANOVA: This test is used to compare the means of two or more independent groups on a single continuous variable. It is appropriate when examining for differences between independent groups on a continuous level variable. The null hypothesis for the test is that the means of all groups are equal, and a significant result indicates that at least one group mean is different from the others.

Two-Way ANOVA: This test is used to compare the means of two or more independent groups on two independent variables. It is appropriate when examining for differences between independent groups on a continuous level variable. The null hypothesis for the test is that there is no interaction between the two independent variables, and a significant result indicates that there is an interaction.

Mixed-Model ANOVA: Also known as a within-between ANOVA, this test is used to examine differences in a continuous level variable by group and time. It is frequently applied when using a quasi-experimental or true experimental design. The null hypothesis for the test is that there is no interaction between the two independent variables, and a significant result indicates that there is an interaction.

MANOVA: This test, which stands for Multivariate Analysis of Variance, is used to test for differences in multiple dependent variables simultaneously. It is different from ANOVA, which assesses only one dependent variable at a time. The null hypothesis for the test is that there are no differences between the groups on the combination of dependent variables, and a significant result indicates that there are differences.

Figure 1: Please increase the font size as much as possible.

 Remove "+" from lines 198 to 207 since all values are positive and an increase is already understood. The graph indicates "change in a value" on the ordinate axis, which is sufficient.

Line 222 should use a word other than "thing".

Figure 3: Correctly label the increment of E on the ordinate axis.

In line 236, avoid splitting "months" to the next line.

Line 238: It is unclear whether significant differences have been observed between the different samples as the type of ANOVA used is not specified. 

Line 255: Put the correct subscript to TiO2. 

Line 260: avoid separating the 2 from months.

Line 263: put a comma in front of 0.87 and avoid separating the 2 of months.

Line 271: same comment on ANOVA.

Line 283: put "The" as there is a ".".

Line 295: Put the author's name and do not put the reference directly.

Table 2: the significant figures are wrong throughout the table. The authors should round the magnitude based on the significant figures of the uncertainty. For example: 51.063 ± 0.418 would be 51.0 ± 0.4, 1.222 ± 0.042 1.22 ± 0.04 or 67.453 ± 3.634 as 67 ± 4.

Line 303: Put Mangium in lower case to be consistent with the rest of the text.

Line 304: remove a space after 0.002.

Line 339 to 341: expression 3 has not been deduced by the authors and therefore they have used it to obtain their results. In an IMRAD academic article this part goes in methods or experimental. Change it to the correct place...

Line 344 and 346: remove the spaces after mg L^-1.

Lines 358 and 359: put kWh m^-3.

Line 375: remove an extra ".".

Expression 4 should go in the experimental part.

Line 394: put TiO2 with the 2 as a subscript.

Line 413 and 414: put Amagium in lower case or consider putting it in upper case but in the whole text, having defined the plant species, there is a bit of flexibility, I usually use upper case, but I leave it to the authors' choice.

Line 474: Move this line to the next page.

Section 4.4. The authors explain in the first line of each paragraph what each of the determinations they make is for, this is fine, but in the discussion this should already be clear, so I encourage the authors to put it in the experimental part or explain the results in the results section, here it is out of context.

Line 478: Mangium should be capitalised.

Line 512 and 513: remove extra spaces after "degradation" and "ability".

Line 542: Separate "of" from "ingredient".

Line 566: There is a "." that makes no sense, revise the sentence.

Author Response

 

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much for your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article. I have included some information considering your ideas and made some corrections for the grammatical errors. The corrected parts are indicated by red color. I am pleased to provide you some clarifications referring on your comments.

 

Reviewer 3

 

This paper discusses the surface modification of fast-growing wood using titanium dioxide-based nanocoating to improve weathering resistance. The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of nanocoating with titanium dioxide nanoparticles on mangium wood against weathering.

 

The researchers used a sol-gel method to synthesize the titanium dioxide nanoparticles and applied them to the wood surface using a dip-coating method. The coated wood samples were then subjected to various tests, including Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FT-IR), colorimetry, and photocatalyst tests. The results showed that the nanocoating significantly improved the weathering resistance of the wood, as evidenced by the reduced color change and weight loss after exposure to UV radiation and moisture. The FT-IR analysis also revealed that the nanocoating formed a protective layer on the wood surface, which prevented the degradation of the wood components. The photocatalyst test further confirmed the effectiveness of the nanocoating in degrading organic pollutants.

 

Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of nanocoating with titanium dioxide nanoparticles as a sustainable and effective method for improving the weathering resistance of fast-growing wood.

 

My main comments are 4:

 

Q : (1) the expressions that appear in the results part should go in the experimental part since they are not deduced by the authors, (2) in the discussion the authors explain why each of them is used and their meaning, but this must go in the experimental part or in the results part in an appropriate way

 

A : Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten experimental, result and discussion part.

 

Q : (3) some parts are too extensive and make the reader get lost in the long explanations, in these cases it works better to use the causal style or cause effect, especially short, and

 

A : Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten experimental, result and discussion part.

 

Q : (4) the authors need to explain in the experimental part which ANOVA they use, since they do not indicate it and the conclusions of each ANOVA test are different.

 

A : The Two-Way ANOVA test was used in this work. We used two independent variables, coating treatments and weathering period. The interaction between two independent variables were analyzed.

 

All my remarks are as follows:

 

Q : Line 62: Insert "wood".

 

A : We have inserted “wood” in the page 2 line 60

 

Q : Line 70: instead of [19], insert author and citation, same comment for line 89.

 

A : The author of [19] and others were rewritten.

 

Q : Line 101: to prevent the units from moving to the next line, use Ctrl + Shift + Space.

 

A : Thank you for your suggestions, we have checked the units in the manuscript thoroughly.

 

Q : Expression (1): use an equation editor to make the square root appear correctly.

 

A : The expression (1) has been changed by an equation editor to equation 4.

 

Q : Lines 125-131: define the terms in summary form using expressions such as: is the increase of ... during treatment, or similar.

 

A: The terms has been changed using expression in expression 1 to 3.

 

Q : Table 1: put a space between < and > and the numerical values.

 

A : The space between that punctuations was added in Table 1.

 

Q : Line 138: use the correct units, as the authors have done elsewhere in the text: mm s^-1 (^-1 represents an exponent). The international unit of the second is "s".

 

A : The unit was rewritten in the line 141.

 

Q : Line 142: change "seconds" to "s" and 0.1 seconds to 0.1 s.

 

A : The unit was rewritten in the line 147.

 

Q : Line 158: The definitions should be: Or is... avoid the use of "=".

 

A : The definition was rewritten in the line 162 to 163.

 

Q : Lines 158 and 159. Theoretically it seems that the units of expression (2) are s^-1, but it is obvious that t is s^-1 and the angles are also expressed in s^-1. Check and express the units. In the case of t in line 159, it should appear that the units are "s".

 

A : Thank you for your suggestions, we calculated the wettability based on the formula by Shi and Gardner (2001).

 

Q : Lines 161-167: the SI expression for gram is "g", on the other hand ppm is not a recognised unit, it can be mg/kg or ug/g, minutes are expressed as "min".

 

A : The units were rewritten.

 

Q : Line 169: avoid skipping units (see comment on line 101 and consider in other remarks).

 

A : We have revised according to your suggestions.

 

Q : Line 172: write cm-1 superscripts correctly.

 

A : The unit was rewritten in line 189.

 

Q : Line 180: remove the "=" in front of 5%.

 

A : The “=” was removed.

 

Q : There are several types of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, each of which is used for different purposes. The main types of ANOVA are

 

One-Way ANOVA: This test is used to compare the means of two or more independent groups on a single continuous variable. It is appropriate when examining for differences between independent groups on a continuous level variable. The null hypothesis for the test is that the means of all groups are equal, and a significant result indicates that at least one group mean is different from the others.

 

Two-Way ANOVA: This test is used to compare the means of two or more independent groups on two independent variables. It is appropriate when examining for differences between independent groups on a continuous level variable. The null hypothesis for the test is that there is no interaction between the two independent variables, and a significant result indicates that there is an interaction.

 

Mixed-Model ANOVA: Also known as a within-between ANOVA, this test is used to examine differences in a continuous level variable by group and time. It is frequently applied when using a quasi-experimental or true experimental design. The null hypothesis for the test is that there is no interaction between the two independent variables, and a significant result indicates that there is an interaction.

 

MANOVA: This test, which stands for Multivariate Analysis of Variance, is used to test for differences in multiple dependent variables simultaneously. It is different from ANOVA, which assesses only one dependent variable at a time. The null hypothesis for the test is that there are no differences between the groups on the combination of dependent variables, and a significant result indicates that there are differences.

 

A : The Two-Way ANOVA test was used in this work. We used two independent variables, coating treatments and weathering period. The interaction between two independent variables were analyzed.

 

Q : Figure 1: Please increase the font size as much as possible.

 

A : Figure 1 has been changed.

 

Q : Remove "+" from lines 198 to 207 since all values are positive and an increase is already understood. The graph indicates "change in a value" on the ordinate axis, which is sufficient.

 

A : The “+” in the texts from line 19 were removed.

 

Q : Line 222 should use a word other than "thing".

 

A : It was rewritten in the line 259.

 

Q : Figure 3: Correctly label the increment of E on the ordinate axis.

 

A : We have revised the ordinate axis on Figure 3.

 

Q : In line 236, avoid splitting "months" to the next line.

 

A : We have revised it.

 

Q : Line 238: It is unclear whether significant differences have been observed between the different samples as the type of ANOVA used is not specified.

 

A : We used Two-Way ANOVA for compare the different samples. The results of Two-Way ANOVA are shown in the Figure. All the figures and table were added by Duncan test.

 

Q : Line 255: Put the correct subscript to TiO2.

 

A : It was rewritten.

 

Q : Line 260: avoid separating the 2 from months.

 

A : We have revised it.

 

Q : Line 263: put a comma in front of 0.87 and avoid separating the 2 of months.

 

A : The comma was put in the line 272.

 

Q : Line 271: same comment on ANOVA.

 

A : We used Two-Way ANOVA for compare the different samples.

 

Q : Line 283: put "The" as there is a ".".

 

A : The redaction was removed.

 

Q : Line 295: Put the author's name and do not put the reference directly.

 

A : The manuscript was rewritten.

 

Q : Table 2: the significant figures are wrong throughout the table. The authors should round the magnitude based on the significant figures of the uncertainty. For example: 51.063 ± 0.418 would be 51.0 ± 0.4, 1.222 ± 0.042 1.22 ± 0.04 or 67.453 ± 3.634 as 67 ± 4.

 

A : Table 2 was rewritten using 2 decimals.

 

Q : Line 303: Put Mangium in lower case to be consistent with the rest of the text.

 

A : The word was rewritten.

 

Q : Line 304: remove a space after 0.002.

 

A : That space has been removed.

 

Q : Line 339 to 341: expression 3 has not been deduced by the authors and therefore they have used it to obtain their results. In an IMRAD academic article this part goes in methods or experimental. Change it to the correct place...

 

A : The expressions 3 has been moved to experimental part.

 

Q : Line 344 and 346: remove the spaces after mg L^-1.

 

A : The spaces were removed.

 

Q : Lines 358 and 359: put kWh m^-3.

 

A : The units of kWh m-3 were rewritten.

 

Q : Line 375: remove an extra ".".

 

A : It was removed.

 

Q : Expression 4 should go in the experimental part.

 

A : The expression 4 has been moved to experimental part in the page

 

Q : Line 394: put TiO2 with the 2 as a subscript.

 

A : It was rewritten.

 

Q : Line 413 and 414: put Amagium in lower case or consider putting it in upper case but in the whole text, having defined the plant species, there is a bit of flexibility, I usually use upper case, but I leave it to the authors' choice.

 

A : We used mangium in lower case. It have been homogenized in the whole text.

 

Q : Line 474: Move this line to the next page.

 

A : The manuscript was rewritten and neatly organized.

 

Q : Section 4.4. The authors explain in the first line of each paragraph what each of the determinations they make is for, this is fine, but in the discussion this should already be clear, so I encourage the authors to put it in the experimental part or explain the results in the results section, here it is out of context.

 

A : The determinations in the discussion part was explained in the results section.

 

Q : Line 478: Mangium should be capitalised.

 

A : It has been changed in the page

 

Q : Line 512 and 513: remove extra spaces after "degradation" and "ability".

 

A : The manuscript was rewritten.

 

Q : Line 542: Separate "of" from "ingredient".

 

A : It has been rewritten.

 

Q : Line 566: There is a "." that makes no sense, revise the sentence.

 

A : The dot was removed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As authors stated that they used the produced nanoparticles from previous work "Physical Properties of Fast-Growing Wood-Polymer Nano Composite Synthesized through TiO₂ Nanoparticle Impregnation (https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204463)

They put only orginal Particle Size and Zeta Potential Analysis, but I didnt find other original chacterization, these should be done and measured agiant according to your work.

Authors didnt insert the the anatomical structure of this wood, and what is the type of vessels? mocroscopic examinations in three directions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate correction needed

Author Response

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article.  The corrected parts are made by track-changes.  I am pleased to provide you with some clarifications referring on your comments. Hopefully our revisions, has met your requirements.

 

Reviewer 1 Round 2

Q : As authors stated that they used the produced nanoparticles from previous work "Physical Properties of Fast-Growing Wood-Polymer Nano Composite Synthesized through TiO₂ Nanoparticle Impregnation (https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14204463)

They put only orginal Particle Size and Zeta Potential Analysis, but I didnt find other original chacterization, these should be done and measured agiant according to your work.

 

A : We have added some information regarding Characterization of Synthesized TiO₂ Nanoparticles that we produced. The characterization includes the method (page 3 line 105-120), the results (page 5-10).

 

Q : Authors didnt insert the the anatomical structure of this wood, and what is the type of vessels? mocroscopic examinations in three directions.

A : We have added some information regarding anatomical structure of mangium wood in three direction. Please see (page 17-18 and page 24) also see Figure 11 and 12.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for considering my suggestions.

However, not all suggested changes have been included, which makes me disappointed. As an experienced scientist and author of many scientific articles in high-ranking periodicals, I shared my observations to improve your work.

Scientific articles should be prepared with due care. This is missing in your work. The low level of scientific solution to the problem is noteworthy. There is still nothing new in your work.

In my opinion, this article does not meet the scientific quality requirements of the Coatings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In few parts it is extremely difficult to follow the content and understand the text

Author Response

I appreciate much your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article.  The corrected parts are indicated by red color. In our opinion, we have improved our article to the maximum. We apologize if our improvements are considered less than optimal by reviewers. The manuscript has been proofread by Editage. Therefor, hopefully our revision has met your requirements

 

Reviewer 2

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 Thank you for considering my suggestions.

However, not all suggested changes have been included, which makes me disappointed. As an experienced scientist and author of many scientific articles in high-ranking periodicals, I shared my observations to improve your work.

Scientific articles should be prepared with due care. This is missing in your work. The low level of scientific solution to the problem is noteworthy. There is still nothing new in your work.

In my opinion, this article does not meet the scientific quality requirements of the Coatings.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In few parts it is extremely difficult to follow the content and understand the text

Answer:

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback that has been given so that our article becomes better. We have made various efforts to improve the quality of this article. We have done proofreading with proof of the certificate that we have included from Editage. Hopefully it has met your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved their work. However, to put the icing on the cake, I suggest these minor corrections:

Line 32: prevent units from moving to the next line.

Line 182: change 10 ppm to 10 mg kg^-1.

Line 187: remove the "-" from 0 and 2.

Line 297: if the 1/2 can be put in better, do so.

Table 2: the significant figures are wrongly expressed. The authors use 1 or 2 without a criterion. I think one significant digit would be sufficient. For example: 51.06 ± 0.41 should be expressed as 51.1 ± 0.4 as well as the adjoining value which is 1.22 ± 0.04. If the authors consider otherwise, you could also put 1.22? ± 0.04? so that all your results would be homogeneous.

Line 432: put vessels mm^-2.

Line 580: change TIO2 to TiO2.

Line 620: delete the extra space in 7-9 /mm^2.

 

Author Response

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article.  The corrected parts are indicated by red color.

 

Reviewer 3

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved their work. However, to put the icing on the cake, I suggest these minor corrections:

Q : Line 32: prevent units from moving to the next line.

A : We have revised it according to your suggestions (see line 32-34)

 

Q : Line 182: change 10 ppm to 10 mg kg^-1.

A : We have revised it according to your suggestions (see line 181)

 

Q : Line 187: remove the "-" from 0 and 2.

A : We have revised it according to your suggestions (see line 185)

Q : Line 297: if the 1/2 can be put in better, do so.

A: We have revised it according to your suggestions (see line 291)

 

Q : Table 2: the significant figures are wrongly expressed. The authors use 1 or 2 without a criterion. I think one significant digit would be sufficient. For example: 51.06 ± 0.41 should be expressed as 51.1 ± 0.4 as well as the adjoining value which is 1.22 ± 0.04. If the authors consider otherwise, you could also put 1.22? ± 0.04? so that all your results would be homogeneous.

A : We have revised it according to your suggestions (see Table 2)

 

Q : Line 432: put vessels mm^-2.

A : We have revised it according to your suggestions (see Line 416)

 

Q : Line 580: change TIO2 to TiO2.

A: We have revised it according to your suggestions (see Line 564-565)

 

Q : Line 620: delete the extra space in 7-9 /mm^2.

A: We have revised it according to your suggestions (see Line 604)

 

Thank you for your feedback to make our article better. Suggestions related to writing and formatting errors in the article have been corrected. We have also done proofreading with proof of certificates that we have included from Editage. Hopefully it has met your expectations

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor errors

Author Response

CLARIFICATION TO REVIEWERS

 

I appreciate much your corrections and suggestions for improving the contents of our article.  The corrected parts are indicated by red color. 

 

 

Reviewer 1

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Answer:

Dear reviewer

Thank you for all the advice and suggestion that has been given to us in completing this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf