Reversible Organic Coatings for On-Site Comprehensive Emergency Protection during Archaeological Excavations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have only some minor remarks and suggestions that can be found in the attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think some (minor) improvements of the English written language should be performed.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We highly appreciate your time and patience to help us with our work. All the comments are responded in the order as they appear in the decision letter. All the changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red, and the followings are the details.

General: I think the quality of the English written language in this paper could be improved.

Response: The language has been reviewed carefully for several times. The authors also asked one of our colleagues, a native English speaker, to help us to improve the English.

Abstract: “Intrigued by volatile binding material (VBM), which can be removed easily and completely via sublimation.” This sentence sounds strange, like being incomplete. Who was intrigued? Please write it more understandable.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. The sentence is rewritten in the revised manuscript.

Fig 3a: I do not understand the legend well. What is “experimental group” and what does it mean “blank group”. Because, if I understand correctly, “blank group” stands for the menthol sealed tube experiment. Why “blank”? Please correct so that this issue will become clear.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. Blank sample is coated with menthol, while experimental group sample is not. This is truly confusing. Sorry about that. Changes have been made to make it clearer.

Fig. 6: “(a, 1d; b, 3d; c, 5d; and 270 d, 7d)” this “d” is a bit confusing. I think it means “days”. I suggest that you write simply “days” instead of “d”. Secondly, I do not understand the results for the spot 4. This is for the case when menthol was applied after mechanical mold removal. Why then the spot 4 is in all cases (very) white? I would at least expect that in Fig. 4a would not be white (without fungi) or with only some fungi. Please explain the results for the spot 4 in the discussion

Response: Yes, “d” means days. Suggestion is taken in the revised manuscript.

As for spot 4, it is because the mold is white. Thus, it is very difficult to differentiate the mold and menthol in the picture. It is easy to recognize the mold on-site though.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have mixing feelings about this paper. On the one hand, it is intersting, good idea but on the other hand, it is similar to cited works 27 and 28. Moreover, some experiments are not necessery to be presented. The detailed comments are below:

1. In citation 27 and 28 menthol was used as protecting agent. Thus, please indicate clearly what is new in this work.

2. PDA and PDB media should be explained even it is known abbreviation.

3.  I do not understand exactly what for was this experiment with pH. Please, describe it.

4. Menthol as an alcohol absorbs water. I do not understand why Authors prove this.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We highly appreciate your time and patience to help us with our work. All the comments are responded in the order as they appear in the decision letter. All the changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red, and the followings are the details.

I have mixing feelings about this paper. On the one hand, it is intersting, good idea but on the other hand, it is similar to cited works 27 and 28. Moreover, some experiments are not necessery to be presented. The detailed comments are below:

1. In citation 27 and 28 menthol was used as protecting agent. Thus, please indicate clearly what is new in this work.

Response: In Refs 27 and 28, menthol is used as temporary consolidant, also referred as volatile binder media (VBM), which is mentioned in the introduction. In this work, we examined the possibility of using menthol coatings to against water, oxygen, UV radiation and mold, common environmental factors causing heritages deterioration during excavations.

Many essential oils are evaluated to use as biocides in heritage conservation (ref 23, 24, 25 in manuscript). Comparing to many of them, for example, phenols, flavonoids, alkaloids, coumarins or tannins, menthol is much less expensive, much less reactive, and less toxic. In this work, menthol is applied in the form of coatings, which not only improves its antifungal ability (higher concentration), but also provides other conservation functions.

Changes have been made in the revised manuscript.   

2. PDA and PDB media should be explained even it is known abbreviation.

Response: Done as suggested.

3. I do not understand exactly what for was this experiment with pH. Please, describe it.

Response: pH test is for better visualization due to significant color changes. The results indicate water cannot pass through menthol coating. Changes have been made in revised manuscript to make it clear.

4. Menthol as an alcohol absorbs water. I do not understand why Authors prove this.

Response: Menthol is a waxy solid. It is hydrophobic. It is not soluble in water (or poorly soluble in water), nor does it absorb water.   

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the research topic is within the journal's scope, being significant and will be of interest to readers. The manuscript is very well prepared, so I have only a few recommendations for the respected authors.

1) In the Abstract - it would be good to emphasise the research's main novelty and significance (why it had to be conducted?).

2) In the Introduction – to justify why menthol coatings were used as environmental barriers and universal antifungals. In this part, the main novelty of the study should be emphasised very strongly.

3) In the Experiment – please justify the materials and methods used. That is, to indicate references from other similar studies.

4) In the Results and Discussion – please increase the comparative analysis with the results from other similar studies.

5) In the Conclusions – again, I ask that the study's main novelty be indicated, and its main benefits be emphasised more strongly.

The references cited are appropriate.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We highly appreciate your time and patience to help us with our work. All the comments are responded in the order as they appear in the decision letter. All the changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red, and the followings are the details.

Reviewer 3

Overall, the research topic is within the journal's scope, being significant and will be of interest to readers. The manuscript is very well prepared, so I have only a few recommendations for the respected authors.

1) In the Abstract - it would be good to emphasise the research's main novelty and significance (why it had to be conducted?).

Response: Menthol is proved to be safe to both conservators and cultural relics, and can be easily removed with no residue. Meanwhile, menthol has decent universal antifungal ability. These comprehensive properties make it very suitable for on-site temporary antifungal applications. Changes have been made in the abstract of revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.

2) In the Introduction – to justify why menthol coatings were used as environmental barriers and universal antifungals. In this part, the main novelty of the study should be emphasised very strongly.

Response: As we mentioned in the introduction part, the deterioration of cultural relics during excavation caused by sudden environmental changes is fast and is affected by multiple factors. It is necessary to develop a simple, easy-to-proceed technology that can be applied on-site during excavation. Such technology should be safe, effective and reversible. It is better to be multifunctional. Currently, no such technology exists.

In the revised manuscript, we rewritten this paragraph to emphasize novelty of this work as suggested.

3) In the Experiment – please justify the materials and methods used. That is, to indicate references from other similar studies.

Response: Materials and methodologies used in this work have been demonstrated in detail in the experimental part. References are cited in the revised manuscript as suggested.

4) In the Results and Discussion – please increase the comparative analysis with the results from other similar studies.

Response: Various essential oils, such as phenols, flavonoids, alkaloids, coumarins, tannins, have been examined as biocides in heritage conservation (ref 23, 24, 25 in manuscript). However, many essential oils have fairly reactive functional groups, are corrosive (for example phenols), toxic or carcinogenic, which make them not good choices for antifungal applications in heritage conservation.

Menthol has decent antifungal ability, less efficient than many other essential oils, such as eugenol, thymol. But Menthol is not reactive under the conditions where heritages exist and is safe to conservators (people consume tons of menthol in beverages, personal cares, cigarettes etc.). Meanwhile, in this work, we apply menthol in the form of coatings, which not only improves its antifungal ability (high concentration), but also provides other conservation functions. Changes have been made in the revised manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we rewritten this paragraph to emphasize novelty of this work as suggested.

5) In the Conclusions – again, I ask that the study's main novelty be indicated, and its main benefits be emphasised more strongly.

Response: In the revised manuscript, changes have been made to emphasize novelty of this work as suggested.

 

The references cited are appropriate.