The Influence of Substrate Preparation on the Performance of Two Alkyd Coatings After 7 Years of Exposure in Outdoor Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is an original study examining the durability of different alkyd-based resins used as surface coatings after a 7-year outdoor exposure, after a pre-treatment process.I have some suggestions for the development of the study.

-Page 2, line 47, the references (URL) should be given according to bibliography rules.

-In the introduction, some paragraphs are completely independent of each other; they should be reviewed, and a flow order should be given. For example, after mentioning the use of alkyd resins in wood coatings, Feist says that surface coatings are divided into two types.

-The first introduction part of the material method should be included in the method.

- From the sentence starting with "three series coated samples" in the material section to page 4 line 145, the name should be given to the method.

-Between which years was it exposed to the open air? What are the climatic conditions? Climatic data such as the average number of rainy days, the average number of sunny days, and the average temperature are important for comparison and discussion with different studies.

- please provide a rating scale for visual assessment. (which conditions 1, which conditions 3)

-page 6 line 219 "cumuli" is a prefix, please use a more suitable word. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

The study is an original study examining the durability of different alkyd-based resins used as surface coatings after a 7-year outdoor exposure, after a pre-treatment process. I have some suggestions for the development of the study

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your valuable suggestions helped us improve the paper. The specific changes made in response to the reviewers' comments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the raised concerns, detailing the modifications implemented.

-Page 2, line 47, the references (URL) should be given according to bibliography rules.

Response: Thank you for your observation! We`ve updated the link and now it`s working properly (page 2, line 49) and reference [48].

-In the introduction, some paragraphs are completely independent of each other; they should be reviewed, and a flow order should be given. For example, after mentioning the use of alkyd resins in wood coatings, Feist says that surface coatings are divided into two types.

Response: We agree with your observations that you mentioned above. We reorganized the information and wrote a more logical Introduction (pages 1, 2 and 3, Lines 37-42, 50-60, 72-73, 81-82).

-The first introduction part of the material method should be included in the method.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We moved the first paragraph in the new method subchapter 2.3. Exposure- page 4, lines 139-145.

- From the sentence starting with "three series coated samples" in the material section to page 4 line 145, the name should be given to the method.

Response: Thank you for your observations. We changed and added the Treatment method subchapter 2.2. ( page 3, line 110).

-Between which years was it exposed to the open air? What are the climatic conditions? Climatic data such as the average number of rainy days, the average number of sunny days, and the average temperature are important for comparison and discussion with different studies.

Response: Thank you for your questions. The test was carried out from June 2002 to December 2011. During this time, the samples were periodically removed from the stand for intermediary evaluations and then put back on the stand. The effective period of exposure was 7 years. Weather conditions were not presented in this paper because only the influence of substrate preparation on the samples' coatings was considered, not wood permeability or wood moisture variations, which are also responsible for fungal growth and for wood dimensional instability.

- please provide a rating scale for visual assessment. (which conditions 1, which conditions 3)

Response: Thank you for your observation. We provided in subchapter 2.3.1. Macroscopic evaluation, which means each grade from 0 to 3 (page 5, lines 174-176, lines 179-183).

-page 6 line 219 "cumuli" is a prefix, please use a more suitable word. 

Response: Thank you, we rephrased the paragraph from page 6, lines 224-227, and eliminated the word „cumuli”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have a few comments about your work and hope to contribute to its improvement:

1. The article needs editing to adapt to Coatings' format and standards, and I also recommend that it undergo a full English review.
2. The structure of the Abstract is not good. Suggestion: Background: Briefly introduce the research problem or context. Objective: State the aim or purpose of the study. Methods: Summarize the methodology or experimental approach. Results: Present the key findings, preferably with quantitative data. Conclusion: Highlight the main conclusion and its implications.
3. The authors could be more objective in the Keywords. There are many.
4. Page 1, Line 35: Since its the first time that you mention “UV”, please, write its full meaning.
5. Page 2, Lines 43-44. When you mention the three wood species that are typically used for exterior applications, you mention that its due to their properties. In the case of pine, I consider that it’d be necessary some cautions, mainly because several pine species have low durability and/or great dimensional variability with moisture. Hence, I kindly recommend elaborate better on this sentence.
6. Page 2, Line 47: You present a link, and probably it’s the source from where you took the information. I have a couple considerations on it. First, it is not the adequate way of citation, please, correct it. Second, I clicked on the link and it is not working.
7. Page 2, When transitioning from the first paragraph, Lines 41-47, to the second paragraph, Lines 48-53, it’s very strange. There is not clear written connection between both topics presented in each paragraph. The same can be said about the third paragraph. Indicate that you will talk about the standards related to XXXX, and then introduce and discuss about them.
8. Page 2, Lines 49-50, you do need to mention the full name of the standard, indicate only EN 927-3(Year) [CITATION]. Then, if the reader wants more information, they go to the reference.
9. I apologize, but I could not understand the reasons why you mentioned several standards in details in the Introduction if the objective of the work was not to evaluate the effectiveness of them or to propose a new one. Actually, the objective was “compare the performance after 7 years of outdoor exposure of two types of alkyd coatings, applied directly on wood or on wood pre-treated with three types of resins, intended to improve the substrate dimensional stability”.
10. There is no link, no connection between the information from Lines 54-61 to Lines 62-66. I apologize for saying it, but several pieces of information in the Introduction seem to be loose, without a logical construction sequence.
11. Page 3, Lines 91-95. The information in this paragraph seems to be linked with some provided in the beginning of the Introduction.
12. Overall, the Introduction must be restructured, the authors must reorganize the presentation of the information from the literature, they make it clear the scientific gaps, then, the mains contributions of their research, what they aim to answer/contribute, hypothesis, and for sure the objectives.
13. Materials and Methods: The authors must reorganize their presentation. They start presenting the tests, and them the materials… Reorganize it, start with the materials, then the tests performed, assessments…, and finally, a section indicating how the results were analyzed, which statistical tools were employed.
14. Materials and Methods: Information is fragmented, especially regarding L-joint modification and exposure protocol. Unclear sample design: number of replicates, controls, and statistical plan are not explicitly stated.
15. Lines 116-118. Why did you use those grading papers to get the smooth surface? From any standard? From other papers?
16. What are the sources, the reason for using the three pre-treatments? Also, the methodology used to apply them…
17. Macroscopic evaluation. Some information provided is not methodology. It sounds more like discussion of the results.
18. Figure 2 has low quality.
19. There is not statistical analysis of the results.
20. The results are merely descriptive. The authors must enrich their discussion of the results.
21. Discussion: Insufficient critical interpretation of the authors’ own data.
22. Figure 6 is difficult to read and understand.
23. The conclusion must be reorganized, basically by summarizing the objectives, stating if the hypothesis were or not confirmed, and staining the main results. By the end, indicate the limitations and future perspective of research.

Overall Evaluation

The study presents valuable long-term experimental data, but its scientific rigor is weakened by the lack of statistical analysis,  unclear methodological approach, and underdeveloped interpretation of the results. The English writing, in particular, requires professional editing to meet international publication standards. Before submission, a major revision is strongly recommended, focusing on structure, clarity, language, critical analysis, and data reporting.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

I have a few comments about your work and hope to contribute to its improvement:

We would like to thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to improving the manuscript. We appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions.  Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the raised concerns, detailing the modifications implemented. Our response follows.  The specific changes made in response to the reviewers' comments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.  

 

1. The article needs editing to adapt to Coatings' format and standards, and I also recommend that it undergo a full English review.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion! We have revised the English throughout the paper.

2. The structure of the Abstract is not good. Suggestion: Background: Briefly introduce the research problem or context. Objective: State the aim or purpose of the study. Methods: Summarize the methodology or experimental approach. Results: Present the key findings, preferably with quantitative data. Conclusion: Highlight the main conclusion and its implications.

Response 2: Thank you! We agree with you, and we restructured the Abstract according to your suggestions: Background, Objective, Methods and Results.

3. The authors could be more objective in the Keywords. There are many.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We reduced the number of keywords to achieve greater conciseness (line 26).

 

4. Page 1, Line 35: Since its the first time that you mention "UV", please, write its full meaning.

Response 4: Thank you! We wrote about what "UV" means (page 1- line 32).

 

5. Page 2, Lines 43-44. When you mention the three wood species that are typically used for exterior applications, you mention that its due to their properties. In the case of pine, I consider that it'd be necessary some cautions, mainly because several pine species have low durability and/or great dimensional variability with moisture. Hence, I kindly recommend elaborate better on this sentence.

 

Response 5: We agree and thank you for pointing this out. In Romania, there are two types of dominant pine species (Pinus sylvestris and Pinus nigra). In the text, we mentioned the natural durability, and we improved the sentence (page 2, line 45, 50, 51).

 

6. Page 2, Line 47: You present a link, and probably it's the source from where you took the information. I have a couple considerations on it. First, it is not the adequate way of citation, please, correct it. Second, I clicked on the link and it is not working.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your observation! We`ve updated the link and now it`s working properly (page 2, line 49).

 

7. Page 2, When transitioning from the first paragraph, Lines 41-47, to the second paragraph, Lines 48-53, it's very strange. There is not clear written connection between both topics presented in each paragraph. The same can be said about the third paragraph. Indicate that you will talk about the standards related to XXXX, and then introduce and discuss about them.
8. Page 2, Lines 49-50, you do need to mention the full name of the standard, indicate only EN 927-3(Year) [CITATION]. Then, if the reader wants more information, they go to the reference.
9. I apologize, but I could not understand the reasons why you mentioned several standards in details in the Introduction if the objective of the work was not to evaluate the effectiveness of them or to propose a new one. Actually, the objective was "compare the performance after 7 years of outdoor exposure of two types of alkyd coatings, applied directly on wood or on wood pre-treated with three types of resins, intended to improve the substrate dimensional stability".
10. There is no link, no connection between the information from Lines 54-61 to Lines 62-66. I apologize for saying it, but several pieces of information in the Introduction seem to be loose, without a logical construction sequence.
11. Page 3, Lines 91-95. The information in this paragraph seems to be linked with some provided in the beginning of the Introduction.
12. Overall, the Introduction must be restructured, the authors must reorganize the presentation of the information from the literature, they make it clear the scientific gaps, then, the mains contributions of their research, what they aim to answer/contribute, hypothesis, and for sure the objectives.

Response: We welcome and appreciate the comments from 7 to 12. Since these relate to the Introduction, we have decided to respond to them all together.

We agree with your observations that you mentioned. We restructured the whole information and we wrote a more logical Introduction (pages 1, 2 and 3, Lines 37-42, 50-60, 72-73, 81-82).

 

13. Materials and Methods: The authors must reorganize their presentation. They start presenting the tests, and then the materials… Reorganize it, start with the materials, then the tests performed, assessments…, and finally, a section indicating how the results were analyzed, which statistical tools were employed.
14. Materials and Methods: Information is fragmented, especially regarding L-joint modification and exposure protocol. Unclear sample design: number of replicates, controls, and statistical plan are not explicitly stated.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. For the comments 13 and 14 we have accordingly revised the chapter Materials and Methods.  The number of replicates and controls is specified in page 3, lines 128-130.  Also, a statistical method was added on page 6, lines 206-210.

 

15. Lines 116-118. Why did you use those grading papers to get the smooth surface? From any standard? From other papers?

 

Response 15: Thank you for your questions. Usually, in wood finishing technologies, the sanding operation is compulsory before coating. The successive sanding with 80, 100, 120, and 150 grit paper is commonly used for preparing a smooth surface and to improve the adherence and durability of the coating film.

 

16. What are the sources, the reason for using the three pre-treatments? Also, the methodology used to apply them…

Response 16: The present study is just a small part of an extensive study about surface treatments on fir and beech wood to improve dimensional stability. The short dipping procedure (15 minutes) was chosen as surface treatment, as a simple procedure, more efficient than a simple brushing. The resins used were selected to be water-borne or solvent-borne, and very different in formulation.

17. Macroscopic evaluation. Some information provided is not methodology. It sounds more like discussion of the results.

Response 17: Macroscopic evaluation includes the ratings for the cracks in wood, adherence, and biological degradation. Based on these ratings, results were presented in Chapter 3. Results and Discussion (starting with page 6).

18. Figure 2 has low quality.

Response 18: Thank you! We have improved the quality of the pictures (page 8).

 

19. There is not statistical analysis of the results.

 

Response 19: Thank you for your observation! Statistical analysis will certainly improve our manuscript. Therefore, we added the statistics accordingly (page 11. Lines 359-372).

20. The results are merely descriptive. The authors must enrich their discussion of the results.
21. Discussion: Insufficient critical interpretation of the authors' own data.

Response 20 and 21: We agree with your comments from 20 and 21. We improved the discussion of the data and combined it with the results in Chapter 3.3. Results and Discussion (page 6, lines 212-217 ,lines  224-227, page 8, lines 265-268, page 10, lines 324-327, lines 346-357, page 11, lines 383-388, page 12, lines 390-399, page 13, lines 404-408, page 14, lines 430-432, page 15 lines 446-469).

22. Figure 6 is difficult to read and understand.

Response 22: Thank you! We improved the figures by splitting them into two for a better visualisation. (Figures 6 and 7)- pages 12 and 13.

23. The conclusion must be reorganized, basically by summarizing the objectives, stating if the hypothesis were or not confirmed, and staining the main results. By the end, indicate the limitations and future perspective of research.

Response 23: The conclusions were reorganised and summarised the objectives, stating the main results and limitations and future perspectives (page 15, lines 471-490).

 

Overall Evaluation

The study presents valuable long-term experimental data, but its scientific rigor is weakened by the lack of statistical analysis, an unclear methodological approach, and underdeveloped interpretation of the results. The English writing, in particular, requires professional editing to meet international publication standards. Before submission, a major revision is strongly recommended, focusing on structure, clarity, language, critical analysis, and data reporting.

 We believe that we have improved the quality of the manuscript and presented the results of our experimental study more rigorously to meet international publication standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you so much for your response. I see that the manuscript was improved in several aspects. However, I still have some recommendations:

 

1. Regarding my previous Comment 6, about the link in Page 2, Lines 49-50. Yu must cite it in accordance with the Coating Journal standard. It is not correct in the way that it is.
2. Regarding my previous Comment 12, I still have some questions/recommendations. The authors must make it clear the scientific gaps, then, the mains contributions of their research (the novelty is not clear), what they aim to answer/contribute, hypothesis.
3. The information regarding the number of replicates is not clear.
4. Regarding my Previous comment 15, the authors must justify it from information of the literature. Make it clear in the manuscript.
5. Regarding my Previous comment 16, the authors must justify it from information of the literature. Make it clear in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your response. I see that the manuscript was improved in several aspects. However, I still have some recommendations:

 

Thank you for your efforts and time spent on this second round of review. We improved the manuscript according to the suggested recommendations. The main changes in the reviewed manuscript-round 2, are highlighted in yellow.

1. Regarding my previous Comment 6, about the link in Page 2, Lines 49-50. Yu must cite it in accordance with the Coating Journal standard. It is not correct in the way that it is.

Response: Thank you again for your observation. We`ve cited the link according to journal standard. Reference [13]- line 49.

2. Regarding my previous Comment 12, I still have some questions/recommendations. The authors must make it clear the scientific gaps, then, the main contributions of their research (the novelty is not clear), what they aim to answer/contribute, hypothesis.

Response: I understood the main request. As you recommended, we reconsidered and improved the Objectives paragraph (page 1 and 2, lines 86-96 ).

 

3. The information regarding the number of replicates is not clear.

Response: Thank you! In subchapter 2.2. Treatment method, we wrote about the number of replicates (lines 135-137). The text is presented below.

„Samples were prepared in four replicates for each variant: three were exposed in the test and one was kept as a control in the laboratory, protected against light and other physical and chemical factors„

 

4. Regarding my Previous comment 15, the authors must justify it from information of the literature. Make it clear in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you! We justified why the grit paper was used, similar to other research and according to the coating producer specifications (page 3, lines 105-107)

5. Regarding my Previous comment 16, the authors must justify it from information of the literature. Make it clear in the manuscript.

Response: The justification and information from the literature were added (page 3, lines 113-115).

 

Thank you for your insightful feedback and the comprehensive review of the manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response.