Consolidation and Dehydration Effects of Mildly Degraded Wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient Ship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The topic of the research is really interesting, since the stabilization of waterlogged wood is a great issue and the description of the work is very detailed. Only some minor issues are to be mentioned and could be improved.

-Wood as a raw material has the ability to absorb and hold water due to its chemical composition of hydrophilic chemical compounds, a property called hygroscopicity. You could use that term instead of hydrophilicity

Line 218-219: It should be noted that, after the initial desorption, wood hygroscopicity is permanently reduced at high relative humidity

-Please avoid using keywords that are already included in the title of the manuscript. Perhaps you could replace them with other words relevant to the research.

-Please transform the tables font and margins according to the standards.

-State-of-the-art could be improved. Some suggested research papers which could be included are:

-Bugani, S., Cloetens, P., Colombini, M. P., Giachi, G., Janssens, K., Modugno, F., ... & Van de Casteele, E. (2008, May). Evaluation of conservation treatments for archaeological waterlogged wooden artefacts. In 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem Israel (pp. 25-30).

-https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091193

-Christensen, M., Frosch, M., Jensen, P., Schnell, U., Shashoua, Y., & Nielsen, O. F. (2006). Waterlogged archaeological wood—chemical changes by conservation and degradation. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy: An International Journal for Original Work in all Aspects of Raman Spectroscopy, Including Higher Order Processes, and also Brillouin and Rayleigh Scattering, 37(10), 1171-1178.

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2009.06.024  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Line 14: I think “implemented” instead of “utilized” is better

Line 17: “the collected samples” instead of “the samples employed”

Line 18: had been mildly (or slightly) degraded

Line 25” properties

Line 41: …more sensitive to heat…

Line 51: Properties

Line 54-56: The meaning is not so clear, please rephrase

Line 76: “Moreover” instead of “besides”

Line 95: The title of Figure 1 is not complete

Line 170: The

Line 174: Filling

Line 198: “reduced” instead of “declined”

Line 208: Maybe rephrase to “effective penetration into the wood material”

Line 250: ”reduction” instead of “decline”

Line 266: Creating create

Line 278-279: “chemically modifying the properties” please rephrase, the properties can’t be chemically modified

 

 

 

Author Response

Journal: Forests (ISSN: 1999-4907)

Manuscript ID: forests-3069104

Type: Article

Title:

Consolidation and dehydration effects of mildly degraded wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient ship

Authors: Yang Weiwei, Ma Wanrong, Xinyou Liu*, Wei Wang*

 

ANSWER TO REVIEWER 1

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for the thorough review of our above contribution and the valuable comments and suggestions for improvement. We did carefully consider all your comments and did our best to follow them in the revision process of our paper. When this was not entirely possible, arguments were given.

A revised manuscript has been now submitted in two forms: with track changes for all modifications and without track-changes but highlighted changes (to facilitate reading and evaluation).

1. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-track changes.doc
2. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-highlighted changes.doc

All the reviewers comments were numbered (Rx.y- where Rx- is the code of reviewer and y the corresponding number of its comment), so that you will find in the revised manuscript justification comments for each change. 

Please find below a copy of your Review report with all your suggestions and comments highlighted in red and our answers in black.

 

We do hope that the revised manuscript amended according to the input of the 3 reviewers, as much as this was possible, will meet the necessary standards for acceptance and publication.

Thank you again to you and the other reviewer for your effort, comments, constructive criticism and valuable advice for improving not only our current contribution but also our future research.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

Xinyou Liu, Corresponding’s authors

15.06.2024

 

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

R1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The topic of the research is really interesting, since the stabilization of waterlogged wood is a great issue and the description of the work is very detailed. Only some minor issues are to be mentioned and could be improved.

R1.1. Wood as a raw material has the ability to absorb and hold water due to its chemical composition of hydrophilic chemical compounds, a property called hygroscopicity. You could use that term instead of hydrophilicity

 Answer 1.1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The relevant terminology has been modified.

 

R1.2. Line 218-219: It should be noted that, after the initial desorption, wood hygroscopicity is permanently reduced at high relative humidity

 Answer 1.2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The relevant information has been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

 

R1.3. Please avoid using keywords that are already included in the title of the manuscript. Perhaps you could replace them with other words relevant to the research.

 Answer 1.2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The key words have been adjusted.

 

R1.4. Please transform the tables font and margins according to the standards.

 Answer 1.4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The tables’ formation has been modified according to the template.

 

R1.5. State-of-the-art could be improved. Some suggested research papers which could be included are:

-Bugani, S., Cloetens, P., Colombini, M. P., Giachi, G., Janssens, K., Modugno, F., ... & Van de Casteele, E. (2008, May). Evaluation of conservation treatments for archaeological waterlogged wooden artefacts. In 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem Israel (pp. 25-30).

-https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091193

-Christensen, M., Frosch, M., Jensen, P., Schnell, U., Shashoua, Y., & Nielsen, O. F. (2006). Waterlogged archaeological wood—chemical changes by conservation and degradation. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy: An International Journal for Original Work in all Aspects of Raman Spectroscopy, Including Higher Order Processes, and also Brillouin and Rayleigh Scattering, 37(10), 1171-1178.

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2009.06.024  

 Answer 1.5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The recommended article has been cited at the appropriate place in the article.

 

R1.6. Comments on the Quality of English Language: Line 14: I think “implemented” instead of “utilized” is better; Line 17: “the collected samples” instead of “the samples employed”; Line 18: had been mildly (or slightly) degraded; Line 25” properties; Line 41: …more sensitive to heat…; Line 51: Properties; Line 54-56: The meaning is not so clear, please rephrase; Line 76: “Moreover” instead of “besides”; Line 95: The title of Figure 1 is not complete; Line 170: The; Line 174: Filling; Line 198: “reduced” instead of “declined”; Line 208: Maybe rephrase to “effective penetration into the wood material”; Line 250: ”reduction” instead of “decline”; Line 266: Creating create; Line 278-279: “chemically modifying the properties” please rephrase, the properties can’t be chemically modified

Answer 1.6: Thank you very much for these detailed advice. We have corrected the grammatical errors and improved the English language in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Submission Date

05 June 2024

Date of this review

12 Jun 2024 08:44:10

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the results of a study on the process of consolidation and dehydration of archaeological wood with high moisture levels.

Abstract

Contains basic information about the review of the work but does not indicate specific research results

 

Keywords

Selected correctly

 

Introduction

Research on the preservation of archaeological wood, particularly from wooden ship hulls, was reviewed.

The decomposition and degradation, as well as the effect of methods on the protection of porous damp wood, were evaluated.

Silicates were pointed out as a form of wood protection

Ulmus samples from the mildly degraded ancient ship Luoyang Canal No.1 protected, using various drying methods, were used.

 

Materials and methods

Elm (Ulmus parvifolia Jacq) samples were selected for the study. The description of the samples and protection is presented in a comprehensive manner.

The methodology was referred to literature data , lacking consideration of wood testing standards for strength and swelling measurement.

FTIR chemical composition was evaluated

 

 

Results and discussion

The positive effect of protection with trehalose and negative effect with MTMS were confirmed in the study. The results concerned both durability and dimensional stabilization of archaeological wood.

At the same time, the degree of hydrophilicity after impregnation was evaluated.

At the same time, changes in the chemical composition of the structure of unprotected wood, after MTMS and trethalose impregnation were evaluated.

 

The results are related to studies presented in the literature. The discussion is carried out correctly.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions correspond with the obtained results. They provide a summary, which, unfortunately, does not specify the level of improvement in the stability and strength of protected archaeological wood.

 

Author Response

Journal: Forests (ISSN: 1999-4907)

Manuscript ID: forests-3069104

Type: Article

Title:

Consolidation and dehydration effects of mildly degraded wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient ship

Authors: Yang Weiwei, Ma Wanrong, Xinyou Liu, Wei Wang*

 

ANSWER TO REVIEWER 2

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for the thorough review of our above contribution and the valuable comments and suggestions for improvement. We did carefully consider all your comments and did our best to follow them in the revision process of our paper. When this was not entirely possible, arguments were given.

A revised manuscript has been now submitted in two forms: with track changes for all modifications and without track-changes but highlighted changes (to facilitate reading and evaluation).

1. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-track changes.doc
2. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-highlighted changes.doc

All the reviewers comments were numbered (Rx.y- where Rx- is the code of reviewer and y the corresponding number of its comment), so that you will find in the revised manuscript justification comments for each change. 

Please find below a copy of your Review report with all your suggestions and comments highlighted in red and our answers in black.

 

We do hope that the revised manuscript amended according to the input of the 3 reviewers, as much as this was possible, will meet the necessary standards for acceptance and publication.

Thank you again to you and the other reviewer for your effort, comments, constructive criticism and valuable advice for improving not only our current contribution but also our future research.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

Xinyou Liu, Corresponding’s authors

15.06.2024

 

 

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

R2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the results of a study on the process of consolidation and dehydration of archaeological wood with high moisture levels.

R2.1. Abstract: Contains basic information about the review of the work but does not indicate specific research results

Answer 2.1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added the research results in the revised manuscript.

 

R2.2. Keywords: Selected correctly

R2.3. Introduction: Research on the preservation of archaeological wood, particularly from wooden ship hulls, was reviewed. The decomposition and degradation, as well as the effect of methods on the protection of porous damp wood, were evaluated. Silicates were pointed out as a form of wood protection. Ulmus samples from the mildly degraded ancient ship Luoyang Canal No.1 protected, using various drying methods, were used.

R2.4. Materials and methods: Elm (Ulmus parvifolia Jacq) samples were selected for the study. The description of the samples and protection is presented in a comprehensive manner.The methodology was referred to literature data, lacking consideration of wood testing standards for strength and swelling measurement. FTIR chemical composition was evaluated

 Answer 2.4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The relevant ISO standards have been added.

 

R2.5. Results and discussion: The positive effect of protection with trehalose and negative effect with MTMS were confirmed in the study. The results concerned both durability and dimensional stabilization of archaeological wood. At the same time, the degree of hydrophilicity after impregnation was evaluated. At the same time, changes in the chemical composition of the structure of unprotected wood, after MTMS and trethalose impregnation were evaluated. The results are related to studies presented in the literature. The discussion is carried out correctly.

R2.6. Conclusions: The conclusions correspond with the obtained results. They provide a summary, which, unfortunately, does not specify the level of improvement in the stability and strength of protected archaeological wood.

 Answer 2.6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have revised the content of  conclusions.

 

 

Submission Date

05 June 2024

Date of this review

10 Jun 2024 18:45:40

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Consolidation and dehydration effects of mildly degraded wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient ship“ presents very interesting and important research results.

The authors extensively cited similar studies by other authors and referred to them throughout the text of the article. However, there are some uncertainties (terminological and etc.) and formal mistakes.

My comments and recommendations for authors:

The Title, Abstract and the Keywords correspond to the aims and objectives of the manuscript.

The Abstract is informative and contains the main findings of the article.

Comment 1: The reviewer suggests adding to the key words: Morphological Characteristics, Chemical Properties.

Comment 2: The paper needs to be carefully revised to improve terminology (i.e., not … “weight” but …“mass”; … not “Re-wetting treatment“ but ... „air conditioning”; …”not rewetted” but …”conditioned under the conditions”; etc.). In science and technology, weight is a force, for which the SI unit is the newton.

Comment 3: Please write correct scalar quantities (e.g ... m, t, l) and vector quantities (F, v) in italics.

Comment 4: The Materials and Methods sections are presented in a clear and understandable manner.

Comment 5: It is not clear whether the authors were measuring compressive or tensile strength because in Line 120 they state: “tensile strength calculated by the equation …” and Line 122: …” where σ₀ represents the longitudinal compressive strength…”

Comment 6: Based on the instructions for the authors, the reviewer suggests changing the title of section 3. Results and Discusssion to 3. Results and 4. Discussion.

Comment 7:  The Results are presented in detail and clearly in tables and graphs.

Comment 8:  The Results: Do you have more detailed images of the surfaces of the samples before treatment, after treatment and after air conditioning? Reviewer think images would support the authors' discussion, as visual analysis is an important in evaluating research results as well as for their understanding.

Comment 9: The Conclusion part reflects the main findings of the manuscript. Reviewer recommends removing Lines 280 – 283. Conclusions should only be a summary of the results.

Comment 10:  The References cited are appropriate to the research topic. 

In generally the manuscript is prepared very well. 

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English is required.

Author Response

Journal: Forests (ISSN: 1999-4907)

Manuscript ID: forests-3069104

Type: Article

Title:

Consolidation and dehydration effects of mildly degraded wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient ship

Authors: Yang Weiwei, Ma Wanrong, Xinyou Liu，Wei Wang*

 

ANSWER TO REVIEWER 3

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for the thorough review of our above contribution and the valuable comments and suggestions for improvement. We did carefully consider all your comments and did our best to follow them in the revision process of our paper. When this was not entirely possible, arguments were given.

A revised manuscript has been now submitted in two forms: with track changes for all modifications and without track-changes but highlighted changes (to facilitate reading and evaluation).

1. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-track changes.doc
2. Forests-3069104_Revised R1-highlighted changes.doc

All the reviewers comments were numbered (Rx.y- where Rx- is the code of reviewer and y the corresponding number of its comment), so that you will find in the revised manuscript justification comments for each change. 

Please find below a copy of your Review report with all your suggestions and comments highlighted in red and our answers in black.

 

We do hope that the revised manuscript amended according to the input of the 3 reviewers, as much as this was possible, will meet the necessary standards for acceptance and publication.

Thank you again to you and the other reviewer for your effort, comments, constructive criticism and valuable advice for improving not only our current contribution but also our future research.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

Xinyou Liu, Corresponding’s authors

15.06.2024

 

 

 

窗体顶端

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

R3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Consolidation and dehydration effects of mildly degraded wood from Luoyang Canal No. 1 Ancient ship “presents very interesting and important research results.

The authors extensively cited similar studies by other authors and referred to them throughout the text of the article. However, there are some uncertainties (terminological and etc.) and formal mistakes.

My comments and recommendations for authors:

The Title, Abstract and the Keywords correspond to the aims and objectives of the manuscript.

The Abstract is informative and contains the main findings of the article.

 

R.3.1. The reviewer suggests adding to the key words: Morphological Characteristics, Chemical Properties.

Answer 3.1: Thank you very much for your suggestions.We have adjusted the key words.

 

R.3.2. The paper needs to be carefully revised to improve terminology (i.e., not … “weight” but …“mass”; … not “Re-wetting treatment“ but ... „air conditioning”; …”not rewetted” but …”conditioned under the conditions”; etc.). In science and technology, weight is a force, for which the SI unit is the newton.

Answer 3.2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The terminology has been revised.

 

R.3.3. Please write correct scalar quantities (e.g ... m, t, l) and vector quantities (F, v) in italics.

Answer 3.3: Thank you very much for your suggestions.

 

R.3.4. The Materials and Methods sections are presented in a clear and understandable manner.

Answer 3.4: Thanks for your appreciation

R.3.5. It is not clear whether the authors were measuring compressive or tensile strength because in Line 120 they state: “tensile strength calculated by the equation …” and Line 122: …” where σ0 represents the longitudinal compressive strength…”

Answer 3.5: Thank you for pointing out this mistake, we have corrected it.

 

R.3.6. Based on the instructions for the authors, the reviewer suggests changing the title of section 3. Results and Discusssion to 3. Results and 4. Discussion.

Answer 3.6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The content of results and discussion have been divided into two sections.

 

R.3.7. The Results are presented in detail and clearly in tables and graphs.

 

R.3.8. The Results: Do you have more detailed images of the surfaces of the samples before treatment, after treatment and after air conditioning? Reviewer think images would support the authors' discussion, as visual analysis is an important in evaluating research results as well as for their understanding.

Answer 3.8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added the images of samples after treatment (Figure 5).

 

R.3.9. The Conclusion part reflects the main findings of the manuscript. Reviewer recommends removing Lines 280 – 283. Conclusions should only be a summary of the results.

Answer 3.9: Thank you very much for your suggestions. we have corrected it.

 

R.3.10. The References cited are appropriate to the research topic.

Answer 3.10: Thanks for your appreciation

 

 

 

In generally the manuscript is prepared very well.

Best regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English is required.

Submission Date

05 June 2024

Date of this review

12 Jun 2024 23:00:26