Review Reports - Sustainability of Managing Archaeological Iron Collections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a useful paper that applies new and established methods to the assessment of sustainability of conservation approaches and treatments. It will be of interest to those working with archaeological metal collections. Minor corrections to the language have been annotated in the review document. An aim and objectives for the study would be a helpful addition, the method requires clarification in section 2.2 and a couple of other annotated queries and suggestions should be addressed. Acceptance after revisions is recommended if these revisions are completed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Typos have been corrected.

Is this the German survey cited previously?

no but unpublished, text amended to make clear.

An aim and objectives for the work reported in the method and results would be helpful here to take the reader from the background information to the specifics of the reported study.

This has been added at the end of the introduction.

Perhaps need to comment on the likelihood of individual object treatment in practice. Would batch treatment affect the values?

Text has been added to address this.

The timeline in this section is not clear. Please clarify the steps in the order that they were taken. Was the cyclododecane impregnation the first step? Were they cut into sections before desalination? The oxygen consumption of these samples was then carried out at 50%RH and 14%RH prior to desalination? Was the RH control by silica gel in both cases as glycerol is mentioned for 50% initially. Or is that only for the two objects that both RH control was with silica gel? Please give more detail of the sodium hydroxide solution and desalination protocol.

The text has been rewritten to hopefully clarify and add details requested. Only the first 21 days of desalination were studied with objects to address the points raised by Gilberg.

It would be useful to comment on the exclusion of processes such as X-radiogrpahy, abrasive cleaning and coating from this study to indicate that the authors know that these are common activities in management of archaeological iron collections but have been excluded because they did not fit the particular remit of the paper.

Text has been added to discuss this important point.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was very excited to read this paper and very disappointed by the end. This paper could be vastly improved with a bit more time and attention. It feels as if it were rushed. Reading through the paper, the more rushed and scattered it seemed to be. The subject is extremely useful but as presented now much is not explained. The tables and graphs could use much more explanation and interpretation. Figure 2 seems to be missing. Much knowledge seems to be expected of the reader in order to understand this paper. Too much is left up to the reader, much more interpretation of the data is called for. What are the "safe" levels of kg CO2eq? What are the recommended levels of kg CO2eq? What levels should the conservator and collections manager strive for? I look forward to reading a more coherent copy!!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thanks for this paper which I found disappointing as it did not successfully relay the information in an understandable and useful fashion. Poorly written in places - there are many non-sentences. I would suggest a thorough review and rewriting in places.

Author Response

Not really sure how to respond to such general comments with no actual suggestions about improvements. The paper has now been read for comprehension by three conservators (possibly the main audience). They have suggested some improvements, which have been made along with suggestions from the other reviewers. But generally said they understood the paper and the terms used and interpretations from the figures and tables.

Safe level of kgCO2eq is a very open research question with absolutely no industry or area having developed an answer, certainly massively beyond the scope of a single paper. Similarly levels a conservator or collection manager should strive for depends on very many factors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important paper which should become compulsory reading for conservation students and for museum collection managers who then need to take on board the observations and provide action plans for directors and Trustees. There is clearly a massive need for increased government funding for more conservators.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

7 Although the data may be accurately reported it is not appropriate to report so many significant figures in columns 6 and 7. The use of significant figures should reflect journal guidelines. –

I cannot find any guidance in either instructions to authors or dot file. Have set them at four for tables and lower in text.

10 It is not possible to compare the relative rates of oxygen content with continuously changing curves unless equations are developed using functions. It would be helpful to reviewers and readers alike if the data were plotted against the square root of time so see if there are any linear portions or perhaps against log time or exp time.

We believe the results removing the induction period in Figure 2 (now included sorry) are clear. We have tried the different plots suggested, the only linear regions occur for less than 35% of the time and only on some plots, which we do not believe adds to the paper.

14 lovely looking data but please provide the equation and the R squared value as it looks most impressive.

Those graphs often are. As we have only used a single value from the graph, we don’t believe adding the equations and R2 values are particularly useful in this instance. There is potential for a more advanced approach using the instant pressure difference and the graph equations to develop an integrated air exchange rate, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Other typos have been corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on a very novel approach to archaeological iron collections towards sustainability.

The main contribution is targeted to the understanding the role of chemical treatments and storage conditions as well energy consumption and C02 footprint.

The results in my opinion can be used in other museums which is a great help to professionals.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The marked up typos have been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved, thank you for your efforts! A few minor things to correct:

Line 51 'focus' is used twice in the same sentence

Line 179 a paragraph is needed here

Lines 190-192 this sentence is awkward

Line 487 this is not a complete sentence

Line 498 "The RH set points are not for zero change to the objects" - the meaning is not clear

Line 499 this is not a complete sentence

Line 551 "Supplementary Materials"should be on a separate line with a space between it and Line 551.

Line 551 add reference 46 here

Lines 570-579 Delete

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Sorry reviewing with 6 new versions in 5 days was very challenging and I obviously failed on some points. They have been corrected.

Line 51 'focus' is used twice in the same sentence, reworded

Line 179 a paragraph is needed here, added

Lines 190-192 this sentence is awkward, reworded

Line 487 this is not a complete sentence, reworded

Line 498 "The RH set points are not for zero change to the objects" - the meaning is not clear, reworded

Line 499 this is not a complete sentence, reworded

Line 551 "Supplementary Materials"should be on a separate line with a space between it and Line 551. done

Line 551 add reference 46 here, done

Lines 570-579 Delete, done