Safeguarding Cork’s Beauty and Longevity: Innovations in Deposition of Protective Thin Films

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The anti-aging of wood materials is a very worthwhile research topic. In this paper, the effects of zinc oxide and titanium oxide films on the resistance of wood materials to ultraviolet light irradiation have been investigated. In this sense, this study has certain value. However, author should considert the following problems.

 1. From the absorption spectra shown in Fig.3, compared with zinc oxide, titanium oxide seems to have more anti-ultraviolet radiation effect, but the experimental result is not so, the author did not conduct a more in-depth discussion of this.

 2. In terms of experimental design, the thickness difference between titanium oxide and zinc oxide film is very large, so it seems unreasonable to compare the UV irradiation resistance of the two in this case.

 3. In practice, the exposure of cork to ultraviolet light is rare, so perhaps it is more realistic to choose wooden components which often serviced in ultraviolet light.

 4. As a coating protection, it is very important to investigate the stripping and cracking properties of the film caused by changes in temperature and humidity.

    5. There are many studies on zinc oxide and titanium oxide against UV and ultraviolet irradiation. However, in this paper, the interpretation of the results is rarely compared with that reported in literatures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cork is a popular material used for a variety of purposes, including functional and decorative items exposed to sunlight. For this, the present study focuses on solving a practical problem related to UV protection of cork. The proposed manuscript is well structured, the methodology used is adequate, the results are described and discussed to the appropriate level and the conclusions are relevant to the results obtained.

I have very few comments for the authors:

1. More publications related to cork enrichment can be included in the review. So is the self-citation will not be so great as a percentage.

2. Most of the literature cited is not described by publication titles.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the topic is of interest because cork is a renewable material with many applications. However, there are several issues that should be addressed in order to guarantee the reliability of the study. Please find my suggestions and remarks below.

 

General remarks

A)      The Introduction could be improved, especially lines 22-28 are very vague and not focused. Where is discoloration a problem? More should be written about the ageing process (lines 37-39) induced by UV radiation: Which properties of cork does it influence negatively?

B)      Information on the number of replicates is missing, a study with just one sample per treatment is not reliable. I would expect that for the colour measurements, which can be done quite fast. Please provide mean values with standard deviations.

C)      Explain why two different coating methods were used. Wouldn’t it be more reliable to compare films with the same thickness?

D)      No information on the properties of the glass that was used in the experiment is provided.

E)       No information about the cork product is provided (particle size, adhesives)

F)       In the conclusion, information on possible applications is missing, e.g. how durable is the coating – since in the introduction “outdoor settings” are mentioned. Please name some potential applications where the coating can be used.

Specific remarks

1)      Page 1, lines 22-23: first “every day”, then “other applications”: this is very vague

2)      Page 1, line 26: which “project”?

3)      Page 1, lines 36-37: is the comparison with steel of any importance for the story? If, yes, then explain why!

4)      Page 1, line 43: delete “a”

5)      Page 2, line 50: “food items”?

6)      Page 2, lines 66-70: explain why two different coating methods were used

7)      Page 2, line 71: provide information about the glass (chemistry, colour….) and the thickness of the glass

8)      Page 2, line 72: Provide more information about the cork substrate – many different exist (size of particles, adhesives….)

9)      Page 2, lines 66-76: Provide information about the replicated for each treatment

10)   Page 3, Fig. 1: only one measurement?

11)   Page 3, line 102-104, provide information of the thickness of the glass

12)   Page 3, line 102-104, just for my understanding – why was there no TiO2 coated glass?

13)   Page 3, line 116, wouldn’t it be more reliable to compare coatings with the same thickness? Is the colour change related to the thickness of the coating?

14)   Page 4, line 120: how were the sections made – or is this x-ray?

15)   Page 4, check the labeling of the x- and y-axes

16)   Page 5, line 159, either use “Greek Delta”C or “DC” but not both

17)   Page 5, line 162, either use “Greek Delta”C or “DC” but not both

18)   Page 6, lines 169-172: any effect of thickness of the coating?

19)   Page 6, lines 177: either use “Greek Delta”C or “DC” but not both

20)   Pages 6-7, lines 205-215, the conclusion is more a summary, at least, at the end provide information about possible applications (more information where degradation due to UV is a severe problem in the introduction would be helpful - e.g. the application on safeguarding cork should be mentioned earlier in the introduction)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

is ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised the manuscript according to the opinions of the reviewers and gave sincere feedback on the review opinions. In my opinion, the revision may be considered for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the revision was well done. I have only one additional remark:

My former comment: 12)   Page 3, line 102-104, just for my understanding – why was there no TiO2 coated glass?

Your answer: In the coatings deposited on cork, it became clear that TiO2 did not protect the substrates, and the test on glass did not provide any further insight. In contrast, for ZnO, we observed a color modification after the deposition, but little changes after sun exposure. Therefore, we wanted to test the protection capability of ZnO without altering the substrate by deposition. Thus, cork exposed under coated glass could be compared with the cork reference, and it demonstrated that ZnO is actually protecting cork against degradation.

My new comment/suggestion:

Maybe you can provide this information to the readers in the method section? This is helpful for understanding the experimental design.

see also in the pdf

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf