Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to see more big picture context for this work. It does a nice multi analytical technique analysis of the icon, but so what? 

In the introduction a larger project is alluded to, but no details are provided.

Lines 54 and 55

"The study is part of the project of creating a database of materials used in icon production. Gathering data in well-structured databases offers the possibility for comparison-based provenance studies and attribution."  

Please provide more details of the database creation, etc.

It would be great if the repository for the database of materials were publiclly available and access details were provided here.  Something like Harvard's Dataverse (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/) would allow the publishing of the data with a DOI. 

At a minimum I would like to see spectra of the XRF, EDS, and FTIR in the supplementary files.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

My only comment is to expand introduction if it is possible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The methods employed are appropriate, however, egg cannot be distinguished from FTIR spectroscopy. FITR can only see general  proteins and its impossible to see which source (egg, rabbit clay or milk) of proteins are within the sample.

- I suggest that they write that they found proteins and that they think that these proteins are most probably egg based on the historical placement of the painting (in this case they need to suport this with appropriate references for prove).

- If this is impossible to do, maybe consider ELISA of proteomics to identify the proteins or

- just say we have proteins and we dont know which proteins are inside and in the future immunological (cite: Kosel, J., Kavkler, K., Pološki, N., & Ropret, P. (2024). Immunofluorescence microscopy for the characterization of paint binder in wall paintings: A two-step procedure of using anti-ovalbumin and anti-casein antibodies on the same micro sample. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 66, 271-281) or proteiomic (cite: Tokarski, C., Martin, E., Rolando, C., & Cren-Olivé, C. (2006). Identification of proteins in renaissance paintings by proteomics. Analytical chemistry, 78(5), 1494-1502) methods should be employed for theri characterisation.

English is ok. Figure 8 is unreadable. Improve its readibility (everything is too small). Conclusions are too long.

Gramatical corrections:

Conclusions
Better to write: While some of these are visible, CT scanning provides much more detailed information: wood grain, internal damage by woodworms, depth of holes in the panel made for inserting dovetails, spaces between the wooden parts, cracks in the panel, as well as the type of wood (linden).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

/