Lavender Paper: A Sustainable Alternative for Pulp Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provided a detailed study on using lavender stems for non-wood pulp formation. They successfully produced lavender paper using nitrate-alkaline method and the lavender paper shows good mechanical and physical properties with low Kappa number.  

Below are some questions and suggestions I have for this paper.

Minor suggestions:

1. Introduction: please add a paragraph about previous study using lavender stems for pulping (ref.14-16) with more details. Please emphasize the gap between the previous lavender pulping studies compared to this work.
2. Materials and Methods 2.3: In Alkaline extraction step, what is the concentration of the NaOH solution?
3. Materials and Methods 2.3: the researchers mentioned that they used hand to remove uncooked residuals which has safety concerns in chemistry even though the materials are neutralized. Please use tweezers or other professional methods to purify the product.
4. Please add a control sample in table 2 for more clear mechanical properties comparison.
   
   Major problems:
5. In section 3.3, there author claimed that the tensile index and the breaking length decreased with increasing weight per unit, which is not consistent with data in table 2. The tensile index and breaking length decreased from 80g/m^2 to 100g/m^2, but increased from 100g/m^2 to 120g/m^2. In order to generate a rigorous conclusion, more data points is needed to confirm is the trend is real.
6. The author claimed that the lavender-based papers can reduce insect presence by about 70%. Please provide detailed description on how to calculate the insect presence number. And add these numbers in table 3 to qualify the repellent properties for more scientific elucidation towards "weak/strong reaction".
7. The author claimed that the good repelled property of lavender-based papers is because of volatile compounds like linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, and 1,8-cineole. Please add detailed information of essential oil you used in Materials and Methods section including the concentration of key components in the essential oil.
8. please explain why pulp + 10% essential oil shows strong repellent reaction while pulp + 1% lavender blossoms + 10% essential oil shows weak repellent reaction. Please add control experiments of essential oil only and lavender blossoms only.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and comments on our contribution.
We have tried to address them.
The responses are in the attached file.

Best regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is of great interest to the reader but it need minor revision described in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and comments on our contribution.
We have tried to address them.
The responses are in the attached file.

Best regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Lavender Paper: A Sustainable Alternative for Pulp Production" by Kateřina Hájková, Josef Bárta, Tomáš Holeček, Michaela Filipi, and Jiří Synek examines the potential of secondary lavender biomass (Lavandula officinalis) as a raw material for paper production within the context of the circular economy and its practical applications. The authors have publications in this field. The paper is clearly and concisely written, and appropriate literature is cited. For the examination of the chemical composition of the starting material, as well as the mechanical and physical properties of the obtained material, the authors use standardized procedures.

This research demonstrates that secondary lavender biomass can be used as a non-wood raw material for paper production. Furthermore, lavender-based papers retained partial repellent activity against Tineola bisselliella moths, reducing insect presence. However, it must be noted that a limitation of the paper is the use of routine techniques for chemical analysis as well as the testing of other properties. I believe the authors should provide some insights into the potential application of this material for industrial or semi-industrial production. It should be discussed whether sufficient quantities can be collected for that purpose, along with at least a rough estimate of the financial aspects of production.

I think this research must address these points because without them, I do not see significant innovations. I recommend that the submitted manuscript be accepted with the mentioned additions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and comments on our contribution.
We have tried to address them.
The responses are in the attached file.

Best regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Lavender Paper: A Sustainable Alternative for Pulp Production” by Hajkova et al. investigates the use of lavender biomass for papermaking via nitrate–alkali pulping and assesses the insect-repellent performance of the resulting material. The topic is relevant to circular bioeconomy research, and the integration of mechanical and bioactive functional properties is promising. However, some aspects need to be addressed.

The nitrate–alkali pulping procedure requires some more details, as concentration, temperatures, etc. which are fundamental for the reproducibility.

It is not explicit whether the chemical composition and pulping tests used stems only, stems + flowers, or mixtures.

The insect-repellent experiment uses very low sample sizes, and a statistical analysis would help the reader,

Provide magnification details for microscopy.

English can be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and comments on our contribution.
We have tried to address them.
The responses are in the attached file.

Best regards,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the response! I have few more questions with your revised manuscript.

1. in table 3, please provide the raw data of the percentage of insects within a defined 2cm zone and error bar. I need the raw data and error bar to understand the strong and weak impact you claimed in table 3. Without the raw percentage data and error bar, it is hard to evaluate how robust the conclusion is.
2. Please add a photo to show where the 2cm area is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your additional comments and for emphasizing the importance of a more quantitative and transparent presentation of the repellent assay. We agree that inclusion of raw percentage data and variability strengthens the evaluation of the results.

In response, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The repellent experiment was conducted using three adult moths (Tineola bisselliella) per test chamber, observed daily over a 14-day exposure period, resulting in n = 42 individual observations per experimental variant. During each daily inspection, the number of insects located within a predefined 2 cm zone surrounding the paper sample was recorded. The proportion of insects within this zone was calculated as a percentage of the total number of insects in the chamber.

Mean percentage values and standard deviations (SD) calculated from daily observations are now directly incorporated into Table 3, which has been restructured to present quantitative data (% ± SD). The qualitative behavioural classification (strong / weak / no reaction) is now explicitly described as being derived from the underlying quantitative percentage values.

In addition, to improve clarity and reproducibility of the experimental setup, we have added a revised photographic illustration showing the experimental chamber with the 2 cm observation zone clearly marked relative to the centrally placed paper sample (diameter 7 cm). This image is included as Figure 3.

Corresponding clarifications have been added to Sections 2.5 (Materials and Methods) and 3.5 (Results).

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the feedback and for the additional explanation.

With kind regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for accepting our submission. 

Best regards,
The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have successfully addressed all the questions raised. The current manuscript has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for accepting our submission. 

Best regards,
The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have modified the article taking into account the suggestions, the paper is now suitable for publication in the present form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for accepting our submission. 

Best regards,
The authors