Quantitative Automatic Non-Invasive Assessment of Material Degradation in Historic Tapestries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is important to add more references. Only eight references is a very bit.

 Can you use Scopus? web of science, etc.

2. I think that you can organize the titles: 3.1. Analysis of Results and 4. Discussion. It is the same topic.

In general, the paper is very interesting, but it is necessary to use more references. In the discussion, only see 3 references are seen and cannot be permitted to compare and analyze the results with literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The paper introduces HeriTex, an innovative and non-invasive diagnostic tool designed to assess the structural integrity and conservation state of historic tapestries. This system offers a more objective and efficient alternative to traditional manual inspection methods by accurately identifying areas of material loss. The use of color mapping—warmer tones for regions with reduced weight and cooler tones for denser areas—provides a clear and intuitive visualization of the tapestry's condition. The incorporation of isolines further enhances the precision of these assessments, making it easier to locate and monitor critical zones.

One of the key strengths of the paper lies in HeriTex's successful validation against manual methods, demonstrating not only faster and more consistent results but also revealing damage that may otherwise go unnoticed through conventional techniques.

However, the discussion section would benefit from a broader contextualization within the existing body of literature. There is a lack of comparison with similar approaches or a clear literature review of comparable technologies. If no such tools currently exist, it would be helpful for the authors to justify the theoretical choices behind HeriTex’s parameters (e.g., the use of wavelength λ = 940 nm) and explain the rationale behind these selections.

Overall, this study presents a promising advancement in textile conservation diagnostics, though its impact could be further strengthened with a deeper engagement with existing research and a clearer theoretical framework.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

 

Better to write: The HeriTex system enables the identification, quantification, and mapping of damaged regions, demonstrating its potential as a valuable tool for more accurate assessment of the condition of historic tapestries by providing quantitative data on their structural integrity.

 

 

 Introduction

 

Better to write: These elements serve as invaluable records of societal development and, as such, must be preserved and passed on to future generations [1]. Technological advancements have significantly impacted the field of cultural heritage by introducing new approaches to its interpretation and analysis.

 

Add newer references and correct: Nowadays, non-invasive quantitative assessments, such us infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) or optical microscopy, offer potential to meet the necessity for objective evaluations of the condition of historic tapestries by predicting vulnerable areas to physical, chemical and microbial damage [4] (Ljaljević Grbić 2024; Legan 2024).

Ljaljević Grbić, Milica, et al. "Uncovering the role of autochthonous deteriogenic biofilm community: Rožanec mithraeum monument (Slovenia)." Microbial ecology 87.1 (2024): 87.

Legan, L., et al. "Cationic silicone based paper impregnation agent for the protection of historical paper against fungal growth. Detection and quantification of fungi using micro-invasive fluorescence microscopy and non-invasive FTIR spectroscopy." Journal of Cultural Heritage 68 (2024): 195-204.

 

Better to write: As a result, repairs were frequently needed shortly after weaving due to exposure to unfavourable environmental conditions, handling, wear and tear, and insect damage [5].

 

Better to write: They were considered mobile possessions, often accompanying noble households on their travels throughout Europe. As a result, repairs were frequently needed shortly after weaving due to exposure to unfavourable environmental conditions, handling, wear and tear, and insect damage [5].

 

Better to write: These interactions are strongly influenced by the material's characteristics.

 

Better to write: The results showed that fabric thickness had a considerable impact on infrared transmittance, with an exponential decrease in transmittance observed as thickness increased.

 

Better to write: The study also found a linear relationship between infrared transmittance and fabric weight: as the fabric's weight increased, transmittance decreased [8].

 

Better to write: They demonstrated that near-infrared radiation transmission decreases significantly as fabric weight (g/m²) increases. Understanding how these properties affect transmission allows for the identification of damaged areas and the development of restoration strategies to preserve textile integrity [9].

 

Better to write: Therefore, it is essential to develop objective tools for their evaluation that do not cause further damage.

 

Better to write: However, its application to the evaluation of historic tapestries has not yet been explored.

 

3. Results

 

Better to write: However, warmer colours (yellow, orange, and red) appear in specific localized regions, corresponding to higher radiation transmission and suggesting potential areas of deterioration.

 

Better to write: An enlarged view of an area of interest is included in Figure 5, revealing a concentrated presence of warm tones.

 

Better to write: This table is available for download in the journal’s repository, enabling a more detailed quantitative examination of the data.

 

Better to write: correspond to regions with higher weight per unit area—mirroring the distribution observed in the transmission map.

 

Better to write: Not only do they represent values outside the calibrated range, but they also highlight zones of particular interest from a conservation standpoint.

 

Better to write: Their exclusion from the dynamic range suggests a substantial loss in weight per unit area, indicating significant damage in these specific areas of Zone 01.

 

Better to write: By automatically identifying the most vulnerable areas, restorers can prioritize their interventions and focus efforts where they are most needed.

 

Better to write: In this outline, the restorers have manually marked areas of weft thread loss and/or breakage, warp thread loss and/or breakage, and previous restorations using other materials.

 

Better to write: This overlap further validates the accuracy and reliability of the HeriTex system in identifying deteriorated areas.

 

Better to write: These regions, detected by the system and represented in warm colours—indicating higher radiation transmission and, therefore, significant material degradation—were not identified by the restorers during manual assessment.

 

Better to write: Unlike areas a and c, which showed strong agreement between manual and system-based evaluations, areas b and d highlight the system’s ability to detect damage that may not be easily visible through conventional examination.

 

4. Discussion

 

The discussion part lacks comparison with maybe similar appraoches in literature. Or at least a lierature review what does allready exist. If there is nothing until now, then maybe elaborate  a bit on why such parameters in HeriTex were chosen:  (such as) 𝜆=940 𝑛𝑚 etc… On which theoritical bases.   

Better to write: Given that tapestry conservation is often a long and costly process, there is a pressing need to explore innovative techniques to support and enhance conservation efforts.

 

Better to write: This finding underscores the high sensitivity of the system in detecting early-stage deterioration.

 

Better to write: The ability of HeriTex to detect and quantitatively assess structural alterations at such an early stage aligns with the growing importance of non-destructive techniques in cultural heritage conservation.

 

Better to write: Similar to the methods discussed in the review by Alaa Ababneh [13], the HeriTex system represents a valuable new tool for the accurate diagnosis of the conservation state of historic textiles.

 

Better to write: In addition to identifying pre-existing damage, the system shows great potential for ongoing monitoring of subtle material changes over time.

 

Better to write: The process is highly efficient, as it involves image acquisition and processing, which can be repeated as frequently as necessary to track changes and assess deterioration trends.

 

Better to write: Nonetheless, the current calibration range has proven effective in identifying key areas of deterioration—information that is fundamental to understanding the tapestry’s conservation state.

 

Conclusions

 

Better to write: The system was able to measure the weight per unit area on a pixel-by-pixel basis within a historic wool tapestry fragment, in the range of 0.002–0.02 g/cm², thus providing valuable quantitative data to inform conservation strategies.

 

Better to write: Overall, HeriTex offers a reliable, non-invasive method for the early detection and monitoring of deterioration, supporting more effective and informed conservation of historic textiles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English may be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a novel, non-invasive method for studying the structural integrity of historic tapestries by the correlation of infrared (IR) radiation transmittance with material degradation analyzing the loss of material with a mapping approach. The authors provide detailed calibration and validation procedures and the application of the method to an actual historic tapestry fragment enhances the paper's practical relevance and demonstrates the model’s ability to detect damage that is invisible to the naked eye or not identified by manual inspection.

I recommend the publication of the paper after minor revisions taking into accpunt the following comment:

• The calibration has only been performed for wool within a limited weight range. Including other common tapestry materials like silk or cotton will improve the strengths of the study.
• The section dedicated to the bibliography is to poor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

/