Coated High-Performance Paper from Bacterial Cellulose Residue and Eucalyptus Pulp: Enhanced Mechanical Strength, Water Resistance, and Air Barrier Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    In this study, high-performance composite paper materials were developed from bacterial cellulose (BC) residues discarded from the food and beverage industry and eucalyptus pulp (EP), combined with a cationic modified starch (MS) coating, and their mechanical properties, water resistance and air permeability were investigated. The subject under consideration is an interesting one, and the paper is a well-written manuscript. However, the paper needs major changes before it can be accepted for publication. My comments are listed as follows:

1. The main experimental methods should be discussed in the abstract section.

2. In 2.4. section: Plating parameters (i.e., spray rate, drying time, etc.) are not explained.

3. The qualities of the figures in Table 3 should be improved.

4. The enhancement mechanism of MS on the properties of composite papers should be further elaborated.

5. The Conclusion section should be appropriately simplified.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment "Response to Reveiwer1".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors developed a biodegradable composite material based on bacterial cellulose and eucalyptus pulp, surface modified with starch, as a membrane in face masks. The parameters of this material, important for this application, were studied, comparing the results with classical materials derived from chemical industry products, which are difficult to degrade.

The manuscript is written carefully and in detail, containing the necessary information needed for possible repetition or further modification of this material.

Author Response

We thank you so much for your reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is interesting, but requires some revisions before publication:

1.Please use standardize units (see lines 216,242).

2.SEM images could be analyzed in greater depth (e.g., fiber entanglement, pore size distribution).

3.Use "wt%" consistently (e.g., "50 wt%" instead of "50% wt ").

4.Figure 4  are referenced but not visible in the provided manuscript. Ensure all figures are included and correctly labeled.

5. Please include quantitative comparisons with commercial PP and glass fibers to highlight the composite’s competitiveness.

6. Please add the tensile test curve and discuss it in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment "Response to Reveiwer3".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Coated High-Performance Paper from Bacterial Cellulose Residue and Eucalyptus Pulp: Enhanced Mechanical Strength, Water Resistance, and Air Barrier Properties" investigates a topic with a potential for interesting and relevant applications in industrial and technological sector. The methods chosen for the analysis of the prepared coated papers are adequate, and the results are mostly clearly presented. However, there are some errors in the manuscript, which need to be corrected before it can be considered for further processing.

Moreover, in my opinion, the manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal, as the prepared papers are in the focus of the experiment, with only one type of the basic MS coating applied.

Specific comments:

1. Semicolons in the Keyword section are highlighted,
2. The discussion on recent studies in lines 50 - 65 need more references to back up the claims,
3. In 2.4., the specifications of the rod are missing (thickness of the wet layer),
4. In 2.9., how many drops were deposited for each measurement, and at what time delay from the initial solid-liquid contact was the contact angle measured?
5. In 3.3., there is some extra spacing between words,
6. The claim in the sentence in lines 273-274 ("Zero wt% BC paper...) is not correct. The absorption is not the same phenomenon as wetting, and the surface in question is certainly not super hydrophilic. Please correct this. Additionally, the time of the contact angle measurement that passed after the initial contact of water with an absorbent surface such as paper is very important exactly because of the quick absorption (Point 4),
7. Conclusion should be compacted to highlight the scientific contribution and main findings of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment Response to Reveiwer4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been corrected according to the suggestions. The discussion of the results has been expanded, and overall, the quality of the manuscript has been improved. I suggest acceptance and publication.