Coconut Fibre and Sawdust as Green Building Materials: A Laboratory Assessment on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Particleboards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main goal of this work is to evaluates, via a laboratory assessment, the physical properties and mechanical performance of hybrid particleboards using agricultural wastes, namely coconut fibre and sawdust.

The document is formally well written. However, there are some suggestions for correction presents in the attached document.

The conclusions should be improved and the quality of English should be reviewed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear colleagues,

Your article is of high interest. However, i allow myself to suggest some minor adaptations:

 

• Figure 1 is of low quality and should be reproduced or redrawn
• 1.3. Research Gap: You talk about "the government". The audience of this journal is international, so it would be fine to declare which nations governments are meant (as we are not able to guess).
• Figure 2 is of low quality. What should one see on microscopic photos? You are not limited in pages, as such, provide figures and pictures in sufficient size and resolution!
• Figure 3 has to small font sizes on x and y axis...; analog: Fig 4
• Is it really necessary to provide three post floating point digits in table 2 (and throughout the article)?
• Figure 5, same is true for Fig 7 is of bad quality, and again by far too little font. Fig 8 as well. Fig 9. as well; fig 12 as well; Fig 13, Fig 14.

Some general introduction of where exactly such boards are used in building construction might offer insights to readers.

A limitation of the study section should be included, as well as an indication of the next research steps.

 

The used BS-standards are not referenced, however that should be done (they are missing in the reference section).

 

The format of the references is partly weird..., however this might have to do with your author anonyization; however, please correct that for the final version: 

P. M. K, M. K. S, R. K. V, and H. K. Govindaraju, 

 

Given the improvements to the graphics that are required, i plead for major revision.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The issue raised in the paper " Coconut Fibre and Sawdust as Green Building Materials: A Laboratory Assessment of Physical and Mechanical Properties in Particleboard" is of great interest at the present time that the construction sector is going through. Congratulations to the authors. I have several suggestions that hopefully improve the quality of the manuscript:

• Abstract: “The results show that the best optimum composition of sawdust to coconut fibre is 0 % sawdust to 100 coconut fibre (0SD: 100CF) and the optimum thickness is 20mm, where its density is 761.99 kg/m³, swelling thickness is 11.98%, and water absorption at 37.64%.” When saying about the optimum composition or properties it should be stated what is the criterium, e.g. application (such as a material for furniture or home construction) or mechanical properties higher than analogous material made of primary resource, etc. Please clearly indicated what does it mean optimum in this study.
• Introduction: The introduction does not provide sufficient insight into the topic. I suggest to improve the introduction by presenting the studies which refer to analogous products - particleboard, but made of wastes (e.g. as indicated in the 1st paragraph of the chapter 1.1.), secondary materials or primarily materials. The introduction should refer to the physical and mechanical properties of these products in order to provide a baseline for the particleboard made of coconut fibre and sawdust described by the authors. I would suggest that the improved version of the chapter 1.2 can serves as the introduction.
• Chapter 1.1. sentence “It's good for the world.” – Taking into account that the coconut fiber usually are used with the resin (as in this study) and a resin cause huge environmental burdens what does this sentence stands for?
• MUF abbreviation has to be explained.
• Materials and methods: deeper identification of the used substrates is needed (e.g. commercial name).
• Described method of the fabrication has not been presented in sufficient details (no process times, information regarding external parameters, what kind of the device was used, etc.).
• The results of the particles size should be analyzed taking into account the methodology and applied model (light scattering ?). It is especially crucial in analysis of the fibres.
• Details allowing to identify the devices used for the testing are missing.
• Figure 15: please add the figure with the better resolution.
• Conclusion: please modify the conclusion in line with the assumed criterion of the “optimum”

.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear colleagues,

in part you considered the comments well,

 

in other sections you seem to either have misunderstood the comments or did something weird to fulfill them.

 

• Some of the Figures still are of minor, barely readable fashion, e.g. the technical line drawings.
• the processing figures have simplly being scaled, which worked fine for the second, but the first shows no disjoined length/width images.
• The units with now two post floating point digits still do not make sense, unless you require these, which i doubt. So round the numbers and get rid of it, unless there is a valid reason. There are a number of issues with long post floating point numbers (accuracy of simulations, accuracy of measurements....)

I pleade for minor revision now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the positive consideration of the indicated changes. Good luck with the further articles!