Redispersibility of Paper Under Low Agitation and How It Deteriorates over Time

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 35/36: It is not clear how Reference [3] contributes to the statement in the sentence before (Refrence is on optical properties, statement about circularity.

Line 60: Reference [13] is a book. Without page numbers in the references list it is almost impossible to find this reference. This is also the case for other citations.

Line 109: Arguments could be given, why the storage period of 9 months was selected.

Line 122: pulp with Kappa number about 11 was selected. For such pulps aging effects can be expected, since for example in ISO 9706 a kappa number <5 is required for papers for documents (with high resistanca agains aging). It should be justified, why this kappa number was selected.

Line 128: sulfuric acid is used to adjust pH. It is not said, which pH was adjusted. It is well known that sulfuric acid degenerates cellulose fibers. It should be discussed how this effect is considered.

Line 131: ISO 5264-2 is not about handsheet production. It this a correct citation?

Line 145-146: According to the text no swelling time was given for disintegration. Why has this procedure been used? The description of the desintegration looks like it is according ISO 12625-17 - but it is not cited. Whjat is the reason for selecting this procedure?

Line 434-435: Why has wet strength not been measured according to ISO 3781? What does an immersion time of "several minutes" exactly mean?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

please find our response in the attached file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a careful and thorough evaluation, I regret to recommend rejection of this manuscript. My recommendation is based on the following key concerns:

1. Flawed Experimental Design:

• The self-developed disintegration methodology employed by the authors lacks sufficient rigor and raises concerns about the reliability of the results. Specifically, shear force plays a significant role in repulping process. Without introducing sufficient shear force, the fibers are not separated efficiently. The authors should consider using a British Disintegrator and follow standard disintegration method as indicated in TAPPI T205 or ISO5263.
• Additionally, as the authors mentioned in line 138, the repulpability of paper/paper products is determined by measuring the screen rejects following a disintegration process. This is a common practice and is scientific sound. The 0-10 scale method employed by the authors in this research is not quantitative and lacks scientific support, which leads to unreliable results.

1. Lack of Novelty: The work does not appear to provide significant new insights or contributions beyond what is already available in the existing literature. It has been recognized by many studies that paper aging can cause pore closure and decrease paper hydrophilicity.
2. Poor Presentation of Figures: Several figures are unclear, or poorly labeled, such as Fig 6-9, and Fig 11-13. Each single graph included in one figure should be labelled as a, b, c, d, etc….. More importantly, the intervals between each column should be in proportional to the months, for example, the gap between 4months and 6months shall be twice as much as the gap between 2months and 3months. The current layout is very misleading.
3. Lack of Practical Significance: Due to the improper methodology, this study’s outcomes have limited applicability or relevance to real-world problems, and the authors have not convincingly demonstrated the impact or broader implications of their work.

While I commend the authors for their efforts, I believe that substantial revisions would be required to meet the standards of Recycling, and even then, the manuscript may still fall short in terms of originality and scientific value.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,

please find our response in the attached file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the Introduction needs to be improved, and the wording " paper" should be changed to " Pulp" and/ or  "paper  hand sheet." Traditional paper also contains pigment, clay, and/ or calcium carbonate.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved, minor corrections. It is well written, but mistakes related to the mixing of terms are not due to misinterpretation of language. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer #3,

please find our response in the attached file.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript entitled “Redispersibility of paper under low agitation and how it deteriorates over time” along with the authors’ response to the previous comments. I appreciate the authors’ efforts in carefully addressing all the points raised during the initial review. They have provided detailed explanations and made appropriate modifications throughout the manuscript.

After reviewing the revisions, I find that the authors have adequately responded to all concerns, and the manuscript is now significantly improved. I believe the current version is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript and answered my comments. I suggest that the revised version be accepted for publication.