The Impact of a CO₂ Laser on the Adhesion and Mold Resistance of a Synthetic Polymer Layer on a Wood Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting paper but rather long. Language has to be improved in results part. The introduction is good and with provides enough background information. See comments in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

ANSWERS TO REVIEWER 1:

Interesting paper but rather long. Language has to be improved in results part. The introduction is good and with provides enough background information. See comments in attached file.

English = Moderate English changes required

• Yes, we tried to improve the English (yellow).

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you for the detailed study of our manuscript and for the comments and suggestions. We accepted the vast majority of them (adjustments are in blue color) and we hope that the revised manuscript is improved now.  

Line 39: What do you mean by “convenient” ?

• Yes, it was corrected with: “most perspective”.

Line 107: … by or through … ?

• Yes, it was corrected with: “due to”.

Line 121: What do you mean by “naturally dried …; temperature and humidity, and conditions at final state; time” ?

• Yes, it was corrected with: “prepared from boards of two wood species—European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Norway spruce (Picea abies /L./ Karst) - after their 2-year natural drying under the roof.”.

Line 122: Which part of the wood was used, sapwood or heartwood?

• We used samples from the mature wood.
• Note: The Norway spruce don’t has heartwood, while the European beech also don’t has a typical heartwood but only a false heartwood (it was not used in the experiment).

Line 126: You should explain here which cut/direction is the top surface.

• Yes, we explained. The top surface is 250 mm ´ 130 mm. The top surface is now better visible as well as in the newly prepared Fig. 2.

Line 140: Multiplication sign and not dot.

• It was not corrected. By our opinion the expression m^-2 originally used in the manuscript (as well as in more other cases in the manuscript) is commonly applicable in scientific papers.                                                                                                                         Lines 225-242: Why is this part italicized ?

• Yes, it was mistake and it was corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a very interesting approach and the conclusions are very important for a further use of this technology.

Author Response

Reviewer 2  

This paper presents a very interesting approach and the conclusions are very important for a further use of this technology.

English = English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

• Yes, we tried to improve the English (yellow).

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for the detailed study of our manuscript and for the positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please see my comments in the file attached.

After preparing a new version, I recommend that you read the entire manuscript all over (I can not say that you did that for this version).

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

ANSWERS TO REVIEWER 3:

Please see my comments in the file attached. After preparing a new version, I recommend that you read the entire manuscript all over (I can not say that you did that for this version).

English = Extensive editing of English language and style required

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for the detailed study of our manuscript and for the comments and suggestions. We accepted the vast majority of them (professional adjustments and corrections in English are in yellow color) and we hope that the revised manuscript is improved now.  

 

Line 8: “graving” ?

• Yes, it was corrected and now is “engraving”.

 

Lines 17-22: This sentence is too long and when reading it entirely, it becomes very vague. Please rephrase it and make at least two sentences.

• Yes, the sentence was rephrased and now are two sentences.

 

1. Introduction: The entire Introduction reads very hard and need rephrasing; some sentences are fored in a way that the reader needs to read them at least twice or three times that he or she undrestands what the authors were trying to say.

• Yes, more sentences in the Introduction were rephrased with the aim to simplify them.

 

Lines 38-40: Put this at the beginning of the sentence and reprase it. Put this at the beginning of the sentence and reprase it. Please rephrase to read better.    

• Yes, this sentence was rephrased.
• Several physical methods can be used for the surface modification of wood in its native state as well as after its pretreatment with biocides, UV-absorbers, coatings and other chemicals [2,10]. Today, to the most perspective physical methods for the wood surface modification belong the plasma methods [11-14] and the laser methods [15-19].

 

Lines 45 and 52: What are plasma beams? I really don´t see a point in writing the entire paragraph about tee plasma treatment technologies, since these were not used in this study. You mentioned them - thats OK, but enough.   

• Yes, these comments were accepted (i.e., - plasma (without beams); - only 3 sentences about plasma).

 

Lines 49: I really believe that plasma itself does not have the ability to make something like that.       

• Yes, the sentence was corrected.

 

 

Lines 62, 86, 92, 94, 97: Notes to gramma or other mistakes.       

• Yes, thank you and these mistakes were deleted.

 

Lines 130, 142: I hardly believe that both wood species achieved the same MC. So application of polymers did not influence the MC of wood? Again, the MC of both woods was exactly the same?     

• The moisture content (determined by the moisture meter GMR 110) of the same way conditioned native and modified (with laser and polymer treated) spruce and beech wood samples ranged from 11% to 13%.

 

 Line 132-136: Please write this more clearly and understandable, and defenitely not in one sentence (written over 5 rows!).      

• Yes, the sentence was rephrased – now are two sentences.

 

Table 1:  light what? black, white, blue, orange...?  

• It is “light-white”.

Lines 139, 142: Absolute? Equilibrium maybe? 

• For the solid hygroscopic materials (wood, …) can be determined 1/ the absolute moisture (weight of water in relation to weight of the totally dry solid material) as well as 2/ the relative moisture (weight of water in relation to weight of the moist solid material).
• Now in the manuscript is used only “moisture”, as for wood materials the absolute moisture is commonly stated as moisture.  

Line 147: Please explain what is this mode.

• Instead of “CW” mode was used “continuous—wave” mode.

 

Lines 154, 157, 2x164, 165, 264: What means that? One or the other? Etc. 

• Yes, these mistakes or vagueness were corrected.

 

Lines 184-188: I recommend using or stating as: "adhesive/coating - wood"

• Yes, it was accepted and corrected.  

 

Figure 2 (Line 210): Please add a scale on the image on the left.

• Yes, it was accepted.

 

Line 224: What kind of bubbles? Air bubbles? 

• Yes, air bubbles - it was corrected.

 

Lines 225-242:  Why it the text partially written in italic? 

• Yes, it was mistake and it was corrected.

 

Figures 3 and 4: Please indicate something of the Images (bubbles or other interesting things you observed) and explain it shortly in the caption.

• Yes, this recommendation was accepted.

Figures 5, 6, 8, 9:  Please explain or list a), b), c), d) in the caption (better than on images).

• Yes, this recommendation was accepted.

Figure 7: Please add a dimensions or explain them in the caption. The images are really of bad quality by the way (blurred and cropped in a really bad way) !

• Yes, the dimensions were added.
• The bad quality of these pictures we are not able to improve.     

 

Lines 388-394 (Conclusions): I´ve read this three times or more but it is still unclear to me, what is your point. Please rephrase the entire paragraph!

• Yes, this paragraph was rephrased.
• Achieved results indicated that searched laser technological operations – (1) a laser pretreatment of wood surfaces before covering them with PVAc or PUR polymers, or (2) a laser treatment of PVAc or PUR layers present on wood surface – are not best suited for a practical use. In this view the laser machined wood should not be directly bonded or painted with polymer adhesives or coatings, or the laser beams should not be focused on wood surfaces covered with synthetic polymer layers.     

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you providing a corrected version of the manuscript.

I do not have any additional comments and remakrs.