The Mechanical Strength Properties, Treatability Retention and Hazard Classification of Treated Small-Clear Fast-Growing Acacia mangium Superbulk at Different Age Groups

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article covers the topic of the influence of the mechanical strength properties, treatability retention and hazard classification of treated small-clear fast-growing Acacia mangium superbulk at different age groups. In my opinion, article presents valuable content. The subject and the supporting analysis are informative and present added value to the body of knowledge on the subject area. The topic of the article is in scope of journal. The article is very clearly written and edited. The assumptions used in the analysis are correct and appropriate at this stage of the analysis. However, I have some small critical remarks. The article requires some minor editorial corrections. In the final version, table 2 should not be split between the pages. Figure 2 needs minor corrections - The dimension lines are very close to the dimensioned element while the numbers are too far away. I suggest placing the numbers above the dimension lines. Unnecessary text "equation 5" next to equation 5. In formulas, only symbols should be used and their explanation should be given below. The results from Tables 3-5 are better presented as bar charts. Table 6 is wrongly numbered 5. Conclusions should be supplemented with numerical information - e.g. strength increments in percentage terms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestion for improvement. All suggestions have been improved.

In the final version, 
*table 2 should not be split between the pages. = Done
 
*Figure 2 needs minor corrections - The dimension lines are very close 
to the dimensioned element while the numbers are too far away. I suggest placing the numbers above the dimension lines. = Done

*Unnecessary text "equation 5" next to equation 5. In formulas, 
only symbols should be used and their explanation should be given below. = Done

*The results from Tables 3-5 are better presented as bar charts. = Done

*Table 6 is wrongly numbered 5. = Done

*Conclusions should be supplemented with numerical information 
- e.g. strength increments in percentage terms. Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Please follow my comments and suggestions.

Good Luck

 

 

 

Line 105, please add some information about the locations where the wood samples were taken like height above sea level, geographical coordinates, as well as diameter of trees.

In figure 5, part (b), please change the sentences (the compression parallel to grain test at laboratory) in to this one => the shear parallel to grain test at laboratory.

In figure 7, did not you use any standards for the treatment process? (For the amount of time, pressure and final vacuum).

In table 4, why all obtained mechanical properties at the age of 10 were higher than 13? Because with increasing the age of the tree, usually all mechanical properties of the wood also increase due to increasing the amount of mature wood. Please add some information which causes declining the properties of the wood with rising age!

In table 3, with adding CCA, the results showed that all mechanical properties also improved as we can see it in table 3 compared to table 4. Nonetheless, there were not any reasons why the results increased after treatment. Please add some information. 

 

In the end, what was the novelty of your work, for I suppose that you did something that previous researchers have been done it, as you can mentioned in your manuscript. 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestion for improvement. All suggestions have been improved as per attached.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx