Polymer Nanocomposites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article comprising development of polymer nanocomposites is of medium extent in number of pages and short in the pure text without figures and list of references.
I rate positively the amount of referred literature and that the author does not ignore older articles as nowadays many authors do. However, any references of other authors from latest 8 years would be welcome; in particular when the abstract starts with "In the last 20 years, there has been a strong emphasis on the development of polymer nanocomposites,..."
The article avoids formal mistakes that are common in other texts submitted into journals.
My subjective impression is that the author selects randomly too few aspects of materials, however I respect that it is a choice of the author and that an article covering all could be difficult for orientation.
I do not think that the text is on the top level in collected information, but it can be a useful tool for researchers and in my opinion, it can be published in the journal.
However, I would welcome if the author adds some references of other authors after year 2013.
As to language, I suspect the text of tiny mistakes (e.g. usage a/an, misprint), however I am not qualified to evaluate English. Most possible mistakes do not lower understandability, with exception of punctuation making the text ambigous in some passages. I am pointing out at some cases, but it would be useful to check the whole text.
List of symbols and abbreviation would ease the reading, since it is more comfortable check the list than look for the first symbol usage in the text.
After reading the whole article, my impression is that the abstract gives a not exact picture of the article contents.
Specific comments:
line 54: "ratio" should probably be instead of "raio". R for ratio is a bit confusing since the symbol is often used for the radius of particles.
line 57: The sentence look like referring to some equation, but no equation is in the text (equations are in the figure, which may be mentioned in this line) and I have found no explanation of l in the text, but in the Figure 2 only.
line 58: Change of D, or change in D?
line 73: I see partial titles of individual parts of Figure 3 in thin font and randomly varying spacing. Regenerating of the figure may improve its appearance
line 75: When using nested parentheses, using their different types can ease text reading
line 80: I do not know the "dimention" word. May it be "dimension"? Comma or a preposition may be missing in this sentence.
line 118: If the Table 1 contains more-lines items, usage of row separator or different indentation of item start and its following lines would ease the table reading.
line 135-137: Please, check the word order and punctuation and think of slight reformulation to make the sentence quicker understandable.
line 155: What is subject belonging to "depends" verb? I expect a word in singular. Only "matrix" is in singular, but it does not fit to "depends".
line 205: For readers not familiar with PLS abbreviation, using it in full words or repeating in full words together with the abbreviation in the start of the following paragraph would be helpful.
line 213: The sentence ends unexpectedly - it should continue with "in ...", "for ...", "when ...", or similarly.
line 238: I do not know the "Camry" word. If the whole means a type of a car, this word may follow here and in line 243 as done in line 240. Similarly in the legend to Figure 5.
line 244, 247, 250, 253, 270: The sentences ending in these lines should be accompanied by references to a literature. Putsch is a chemist, or a company?
References: Tiny inconsistency - the author uses "and" before the last author (what I do not like, but it is one of common formats), and he sometimes places commas before and sometimes not. I suggest to the author to use it in the same way for all references.
Author Response
We have attached the revised manuscript addressing the issues that have been brought up by the reviewers.
The point-by-point response to the comments raised by Reviewer #1.
The article comprising development of polymer nanocomposites is of medium extent in number of pages and short in the pure text without figures and list of references.
I rate positively the amount of referred literature and that the author does not ignore older articles as nowadays many authors do. However, any references of other authors from latest 8 years would be welcome; in particular when the abstract starts with "In the last 20 years, there has been a strong emphasis on the development of polymer nanocomposites,..."
The article avoids formal mistakes that are common in other texts submitted into journals.
My subjective impression is that the author selects randomly too few aspects of materials, however I respect that it is a choice of the author and that an article covering all could be difficult for orientation.
I do not think that the text is on the top level in collected information, but it can be a useful tool for researchers and in my opinion, it can be published in the journal.
However, I would welcome if the author adds some references of other authors after year 2013.
Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions.
This review provides a broad perspective with diverse entries including an overview and in-depth research information covering the world of polymer nanocomposites. Articles are written at a level accessible to graduate students and researchers in polymer science.
We believe that this review will contribute to the development of researchers who will support the next generation of polymer science and the polymer industry.
Research on nanocomposites has developed remarkably mainly in the decade since 2000. In the decade that followed, progress was slow. Therefore, there are few excellent papers after 2013. A book that summarizes information after 2013 has been added to the literature in the Future Outlook of Section 7 (Ref. 358).
[358] Koo, J., ed., (2016) ‘Fundamentals, Propertoes, and Applications of Polyme Nanocompostes’ Cambridge Univ Press, New York, pp 697.
List of symbols and abbreviation would ease the reading, since it is more comfortable check the list than look for the first symbol usage in the text.
Response:
Regarding “List of symbols and abbreviation”
Considering the consistency of the articles in the special issue, ultimately, we want to follow our editor.
After reading the whole article, my impression is that the abstract gives a not exact picture of the article contents.
Response:
The abstract has been revised for clarity.
Specific comments:
line 54: "ratio" should probably be instead of "raio". R for ratio is a bit confusing since the symbol is often used for the radius of particles.
Response:
We have fixed it.
line 57: The sentence look like referring to some equation, but no equation is in the text (equations are in the figure, which may be mentioned in this line) and I have found no explanation of l in the text, but in the Figure 2 only.
line 58: Change of D, or change in D?
Response:
We have described more explanation in Fig. 2 caption.
their respective surface area-to-volume ratios R.
We have fixed it: change in D.
line 73: I see partial titles of individual parts of Figure 3 in thin font and randomly varying spacing. Regenerating of the figure may improve its appearance
line 75: When using nested parentheses, using their different types can ease text reading
Response:
We didn't make any changes to these suggestions.
line 80: I do not know the "dimention" word. May it be "dimension"? Comma or a preposition may be missing in this sentence.
Response:
We have fixed it.
line 118: If the Table 1 contains more-lines items, usage of row separator or different indentation of item start and its following lines would ease the table reading.
Response:
We didn't make any changes to these suggestions.
line 135-137: Please, check the word order and punctuation and think of slight reformulation to make the sentence quicker understandable
Response:
We have modified the sentence: Therefore, a few weight percent of layered silicate properly dispersed throughout the polymer matrix provides a much larger surface area for polymer/filler interaction than conventional composites.
line 155: What is subject belonging to "depends" verb? I expect a word in singular. Only "matrix" is in singular, but it does not fit to "depends".
Response:
We have modified the sentence: ……polymer matrix by an average distance that is entirely dependent on the layered silicate loading.
line 205: For readers not familiar with PLS abbreviation, using it in full words or repeating in full words together with the abbreviation in the start of the following paragraph would be helpful.
Response:
We have modified the caption: polymer–layered silicate (PLS)
line 213: The sentence ends unexpectedly - it should continue with "in ...", "for ...", "when ...", or similarly.
Response:
We have modified the sentence: Polyolefines such as polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) have been used are shown in Table 4.
line 238: I do not know the "Camry" word. If the whole means a type of a car, this word may follow here and in line 243 as done in line 240. Similarly in the legend to Figure 5.
Response:
They are all car grade names.
line 244, 247, 250, 253, 270: The sentences ending in these lines should be accompanied by references to a literature. Putsch is a chemist, or a company?
Response:
Putsch is the name of the company.
We have added the reference (Ref. 357) to Fig 5. caption.
[357] Okamoto, M., (2013) ‘Propertoes and Applications of Polyme Nanocompostes’ Seikei–Kakou 25: 63–67.
References: Tiny inconsistency - the author uses "and" before the last author (what I do not like, but it is one of common formats), and he sometimes places commas before and sometimes not. I suggest to the author to use it in the same way for all references.
Response:
We have fixed them as much as possible.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This review focuses on the development of different polymer nanocomposites. Authors need to explain the novel polymer nanocomposites in detail with the latest reported works of literature. This review was very routine and simple, not of much novelty. Hence, in the present form, the review is not of a high standard to be published in this journal. However, if the authors are willing to make extra efforts to address the following queries to improve the quality of this review, it can be accepted after major revision.
1) Authors should list synthetic/treatment methods and their merits and demerits.
2) The review should focus on more recent developments in the field. Recent publications after 2020 should be cited more.
3) Different properties of the polymer nanocomposites should be compared.
4) In figure 2, different reinforcing materials are given, but their role in the preparation of poly nanocomposite has to be explained in detail with relevant examples.
5) Figure 3, nicely represents the different forms of polymer nanocomposites. However, their respective structural behaviors and physical/chemical properties were not explained in detail. Authors should definitely have much attention to developing novel polymer nanocomposites pertaining to recent research trends.
6) More emphasis has to be given to 2D/3D layered functionalized polymer nanocomposites like CNTs, rGOs, GOs and MoS2 sheets.
7) Worldwide quantification of data related to the newly developed materials can be listed in a table format.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I have attached a revised manuscript that addresses the issues raised by your report. Point-by-point response to your comments shown as the following:
This review focuses on the development of different polymer nanocomposites. Authors need to explain the novel polymer nanocomposites in detail with the latest reported works of literature. This review was very routine and simple, not of much novelty. Hence, in the present form, the review is not of a high standard to be published in this journal. However, if the authors are willing to make extra efforts to address the following queries to improve the quality of this review, it can be accepted after major revision.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their suggestions. This review provides a broad perspective with diverse entries including overviews and in-depth research information covering the world of polymer nanocomposites. Articles are written at a level accessible to graduate students and researchers in polymer science.
We believe that this review will contribute to the development of researchers who will support the next generation of polymer science and the polymer industry.
1) Authors should list synthetic/treatment methods and their merits and demerits.
Response:
We have described more explanation regarding synthetic methods.
The preparative methods are broadly classified into three main categories.
(1) Intercalation of polymer or pre-polymer from solution
This is based on a solvent system in which polymer or pre-polymer is soluble and the silicate layers are swell-able. The layered silicate is first swollen in a solvent, such as water, chloroform or toluene etc. When the polymer and layered silicate solutions are mixed, the polymer chains intercalate and displace the solvent within the interlayer of the silicate. Upon solvent removal, the intercalated structure remains, resulting in polymer–layered silicate (PLS) nanocomposites.
(2) In situ intercalative polymerization method
In this method, the organically–modified layered silicate is swollen within the liquid monomer or a monomer solution so as the polymer formation can occur in between the intercalated sheets. Polymerization can be initiated either by heat or radiation, by the diffusion of a suitable initiator or by an organic initiator or catalyst fixed through cation exchange inside the interlayer before the swelling step by the monomer.
(3) Melt intercalation method
This method involves annealing, statically or under shear, a mixture of the polymer and organically–modified layered silicate above the softening point of the polymer. This method has great advantages over either in situ intercalative polymerization or polymer solution intercalation. Firstly, this method is environmentally benign due to the absence of organic solvents. Secondly, it is compatible with current industrial process, such as extrusion and injection molding. Melt intercalation method allows the use of polymers which were previously not suitable for in situ polymerization or solution intercalation method. Other possibilities are exfoliation-adsorpsion, and template synthesis [1, 13]. Nowadays this solvent-free method is much preferred for practical industrial material production by its high efficiency and possibility of avoiding environmental hazards.
2) The review should focus on more recent developments in the field. Recent publications after 2020 should be cited more.
Response:
Research on nanocomposites has developed remarkably mainly in the decade since 2000. In the decade that followed, progress was slow. Therefore, there are few excellent papers after 2013. A book that summarizes information after 2013 has been added to the literature in the Future Outlook of Section 7 (Ref. 358).
[358] Koo, J., ed., (2016) ‘Fundamentals, Propertoes, and Applications of Polyme Nanocompostes’ Cambridge Univ Press, New York, pp 697.
3) Different properties of the polymer nanocomposites should be compared.
Response:
As we mentioned in the text, it is a very complex matter to understand the reason why the property enhancement takes place in polymer nanocomposites (see in Table 1).
Understanding nanostructures is more important than understanding properties. Therefore, in this review the importance of structure is illustrated in Fig. 1. Many papers attempt to interpret physical properties without fully analyzing the nanostructure of nanocomposites, which leads to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
4) In figure 2, different reinforcing materials are given, but their role in the preparation of poly nanocomposite has to be explained in detail with relevant examples.
Response:
The content of the review is determined by the researchers in charge of this special issue. Various nanomaterials and their properties will be reported by other researchers.
5) Figure 3, nicely represents the different forms of polymer nanocomposites. However, their respective structural behaviors and physical/chemical properties were not explained in detail. Authors should definitely have much attention to developing novel polymer nanocomposites pertaining to recent research trends.
Response:
As we mentioned above, the content of the review is determined by the researchers in charge of this special issue. Various nanomaterials and their properties will be reported by other researchers.
6) More emphasis has to be given to 2D/3D layered functionalized polymer nanocomposites like CNTs, rGOs, GOs and MoS2
Response:
As we mentioned above, various nanomaterials and their properties will be reported by other researchers.
7) Worldwide quantification of data related to the newly developed materials can be listed in a table format.
Response:
As mentioned above, we do not believe that experimental results on the developed materials can be added to this review unless we can find a good reason to explain them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This review aims to summarize efforts in the area of polymer nanocomposites and associated applications. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend publications due to the following reasons:
* The reviewed literature is originating mainly aroung the year 2000. The most recent references are a couple from 2013 and just one from 2019. Much more work - including engineering applications - was done recently.
* The above fact reflects also to the core of the review: The focus seems to be on silicate (clay-based) fillers. However, the recent years have seen a vast variety of other fillers, with much more advantageous properties.
* Section 4 is also not bringing any new knowledge to the reader. The methods are already old and trivial.
* Being a review, one would expect a more qualtitative evaluation and outlook.
Author Response
We have attached the revised manuscript addressing the issues that have been brought up by the reviewers.
The point-by-point response to the comments raised by Reviewer #3.
This review aims to summarize efforts in the area of polymer nanocomposites and associated applications. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend publications due to the following reasons:
* The reviewed literature is originating mainly aroung the year 2000. The most recent references are a couple from 2013 and just one from 2019. Much more work - including engineering applications - was done recently.
Response:
Research on nanocomposites has developed remarkably mainly in the decade since 2000. In the decade that followed, progress was slow. Therefore, there are few excellent papers after 2013. A book that summarizes information after 2013 has been added to the literature in the Future Outlook of Section 7 (Ref. 358).
[358] Koo, J., ed., (2016) ‘Fundamentals, Propertoes, and Applications of Polyme Nanocompostes’ Cambridge Univ Press, New York, pp 697.
As we mentioned in the text, it is a very complex matter to understand the reason why the property enhancement takes place in polymer nanocomposites (see in Table 1).
Understanding nanostructures is more important than understanding properties. Therefore, in this review the importance of structure is illustrated in Fig. 1. Many papers attempt to interpret physical properties without fully analyzing the nanostructure of nanocomposites, which leads to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
* The above fact reflects also to the core of the review: The focus seems to be on silicate (clay-based) fillers. However, the recent years have seen a vast variety of other fillers, with much more advantageous properties.
Response:
The content of the review is determined by the researchers in charge of this special issue. Various nanomaterials and their properties will be reported by other researchers.
* Section 4 is also not bringing any new knowledge to the reader. The methods are already old and trivial.
Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewers for their suggestions.
This review provides a broad perspective with diverse entries including an overview and in-depth research information covering the world of polymer nanocomposites. Articles are written at a level accessible to graduate students and researchers in polymer science.
We believe that this review will contribute to the development of researchers who will support the next generation of polymer science and the polymer industry.
* Being a review, one would expect a more qualtitative evaluation and outlook.
Response:
As we mentioned in the text, it is a very complex matter to understand the reason why the property enhancement takes place in polymer nanocomposites (see in Table 1).
Understanding nanostructures is more important than understanding properties. Therefore, in this review the importance of structure is illustrated in Fig. 1. Many papers attempt to interpret physical properties without fully analyzing the nanostructure of nanocomposites, which leads to major misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
As we mentioned above, unless we can find a good reason to explain the experimental results related to the newly developed material, we don't think it can be added to this review.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author worked well to improvise the manuscript, and the current state of the manuscript may be accepted for publication.
