Escribir un comentario

I carefully read the manuscript submitted by the authors. I would like to provide the following observations, suggestions, and questions:

1. The authors should reconsider the title of the manuscript. The study appears to focus on optimization through alkaline treatment, and the title should clearly reflect this aspect.

2. The experimental design methodology needs to be revised. The authors should properly adopt either a Box–Behnken Design (BBD) or a Central Composite Design (CCD). The current approach is not methodologically appropriate for optimization studies.

3. The English language throughout the manuscript requires significant improvement.

4. It remains unclear whether the study is intended as an optimization study or simply an investigation of NaOH concentration variation. The overall objective and scope of the work are confusing and should be clarified.

5. The authors should review the existing literature related to the studied plant. Numerous studies already exist concerning:

* the influence of sampling zone along the stem,

* alkaline and chemical treatments,

* composite applications,

* rope and cordage applications.

The authors should provide a comprehensive literature review and clearly highlight the originality and relevance of the present study.

6. Please specify precisely the sampling location of the fibers/materials.

7. Did the authors consider the sampling zone along the stem during specimen collection?

8. The introduction, abstract, and conclusion sections should be thoroughly revised and rewritten.

9. In Cameroon, the northern region is known as the major production area of this plant. Why did the authors choose the Littoral region? Why not the Western region of Cameroon? A scientific justification should be provided.

10. The results should be presented in comparative tables including other natural fibers such as flax, jute, hemp, and okra fibers from previous studies.

11. Please clearly specify that the fibers were extracted from the stem bark.

12. What was the age or maturity stage of the stems used in this study?

13. Why was the extraction process conducted after two weeks? The rationale should be explained.

14. The presentation of experimental equipment, testing procedures, and the number of specimens tested should be more explicit and detailed.

15. The authors should carefully redefine and clarify the objective of this manuscript.

16. The discussion of the results is weak and lacks sufficient literature support. More references and deeper scientific discussion are needed.

17. Please verify whether all listed authors have expertise relevant to the subject area of this manuscript.

At this stage, I recommend major revisions. I hope the authors will carefully address these comments and substantially improve the manuscript before further evaluation.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.