Effects of wood fiber impulse-cyclone drying process on the UV-accelerated aging properties of wood-plastic composites

Qingde Li; Feng Chen; Tonghui Sang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266784

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 19, 2021
10 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor PONE-D-21-36767Effects of Wood Fiber Impulse-Cyclone Drying Process on the UV-Accelerated Aging Properties of Wood-Plastic CompositesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== The paper is deserve publication in PLOS ONE given the positive response of the respected reviewers after minor revision. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.31901243) financially supported this research. Qingde Li conceived and designed the experiments; Feng Chen performed the experiments; Tonghui Sang analyzed the data and wrote the paper." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Pleas address the comments of the second reviewer and submit a revised version. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study focused on WPC manufactured by pulse cyclone dryer, studied the effect of high temperature hot air treatment conditions on the modification efficiency of biomass fiber, and discussed the effects of fiber modification conditions on UV accelerated aging, mechanical properties, chromaticity, dynamic thermomechanical (DMA) properties and thermogravimetric (TG) behavior of WPC. The results showed that the UV aging resistance and thermal stability of WPC could be improved by adding wood fiber modified by 220 ° C pulse cyclone drying and A187. However, when the pulse cyclone drying temperature is too high, the strengthening effect will decrease. In general, the research method and process are relatively clear, the research data is full and accurate, and the research results answer the research questions. Reviewer #2: 1. What is the purpose of this research? To improve the composites performance of biomass composites or the effect of high-temperature hot air treatment conditions on the efficiency of biomass fiber modification, or something else? 2. Please discuss the scientific nature of the experimental method. 3. The literature review does not fully explain the advancement and innovation of this research. 4.The abstract cannot be replaced by a conclusion. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266784.r001
Revision 1
15 Feb 2022 Author Response Response to reviewers’ comments Dear Managing Editor, Thanks so much for your professional review of our manuscript entitled “ Effects of Wood Fiber Impulse-Cyclone Drying Process on the UV-Accelerated Aging Properties of Wood-Plastic Composites ” (ID:PONE-D-21-36767). We also highly appreciate the beneficial suggestions and comments from the reviewers. All the questions pointed out by reviewers have been answered carefully and discussed in detail. The changes are marked with GREEN font in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows in the “Responses to the Reviewers”. We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Thank you very much for your work concerning our article. Sincerely yours, Qingde Li Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: Thank you for this good suggestion. We have eliminated it and the changes can be found in the revised manuscript. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.31901243) financially supported this research. Qingde Li conceived and designed the experiments; Feng Chen performed the experiments; Tonghui Sang analyzed the data and wrote the paper."We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Thank you for this good suggestion. We have eliminated it and the changes can be found on Page 13 in the revised manuscript. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: Thank you for this good suggestion. We have eliminated it and the changes can be found in the revised manuscript. Review Comments to the Author： Reviewer #1: This study focused on WPC manufactured by pulse cyclone dryer, studied the effect of high temperature hot air treatment conditions on the modification efficiency of biomass fiber, and discussed the effects of fiber modification conditions on UV accelerated aging, mechanical properties, chromaticity, dynamic thermomechanical (DMA) properties and thermogravimetric (TG) behavior of WPC. The results showed that the UV aging resistance and thermal stability of WPC could be improved by adding wood fiber modified by 220 ° C pulse cyclone drying and A187. However, when the pulse cyclone drying temperature is too high, the strengthening effect will decrease. In general, the research method and process are relatively clear, the research data is full and accurate, and the research results answer the research questions. Response: Thank you for your congenial suggestion. We will refine our manuscript even better. Reviewer #2: 1. What is the purpose of this research? To improve the composites performance of biomass composites or the effect of high-temperature hot air treatment conditions on the efficiency of biomass fiber modification, or something else? Response: Thank you for your congenial suggestion. It is the purpose of this research that the composites performance of biomass composites is improved through high-temperature hot air treatment. 2. Please discuss the scientific nature of the experimental method. Response: Thank you for this good suggestion. A spectrophotometer (CM-2300d, Konica Minolta, Japan) was utilized to measure the surface chromaticity values of HDPE/wood fiber composite specimens. The Lab* color system developed by the International Commission of Illumination CIE (1976) was used for color notation. A universal mechanical tester (WDW-20, Kexin Testing Instrument, Changchun, Jilin, China) was utilized to measure the mechanical properties of HDPE/wood fiber composites before and after accelerated aging. The specimens test in accordance with ASTM D 790 and ASTM D256 . The test results were expressed as the arithmetic means of five specimens. A scanning electron microscope (QUANTA200, FEI, Netherlands) was utilized for the material surface characterization and the test results analysis. The working principle of scanning electron microscope (SEM) was based on the interaction between electrons and matter. The experimental process was implemented in accordance with ASTM E1588 (2017) , and the sample morphological characteristics were observed using QUANTA 200 SEM system under an accelerating voltage of 30 kV. The experimental methods in the article are scientifically carried out in accordance with international standards. 3. The literature review does not fully explain the advancement and innovation of this research. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The impulse-cyclone drying equipment was independently developed by us. This is where the innovation of the article. The article demonstrates the effect of impulse-cyclone drying technique through relevant experiments. 4.The abstract cannot be replaced by a conclusion. Response: Thank you for your kind suggestion. we have revised it and the changes can be found in the abstract. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266784.r002
28 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor Effects of Wood Fiber Impulse-Cyclone Drying Process on the UV-Accelerated Aging Properties of Wood-Plastic Composites PONE-D-21-36767R1 Dear Dr. Chen, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing the reviewers comments Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266784.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor PONE-D-21-36767R1 Effects of Wood Fiber Impulse-Cyclone Drying Process on the UV-Accelerated Aging Properties of Wood-Plastic Composites Dear Dr. Chen: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266784.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .