Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very good selection of tomographic examinations to describe the internal structure of porous materials, in particular to determine the share of pores of given dimensions in the volume.

In the future, it would be possible to link these studies with the results of the physicochemical interaction studies at the interface of molten salt-ceramic material.

In Figure 2 - please mark the scale more (it is hardly visible) and pay attention to the description through the porosity arrows.

Please enter the scale in Fig. 3

Author Response

A very good selection of tomographic examinations to describe the internal structure of porous materials, in particular to determine the share of pores of given dimensions in the volume.

In the future, it would be possible to link these studies with the results of the physicochemical interaction studies at the interface of molten salt-ceramic material.

Response 1: Yes, we entirely agree with you. According to the literature and our previous study, ceramic material has good chemical inertness when exposed to pure molten salt. However, in molten salt with purities (e.g. H₂O) environment, corrosion of ceramic may occur. In this case, we must study physicochemical behavior of the material. Fortunately, in this paper, there was no obvious evidence of chemical reaction, so we mainly focus on infiltration of molten salt into ceramic. In our future study, we will focus on the physicochemical behavior of ceramic material in molten salt environment.

In Figure 2 - please mark the scale more (it is hardly visible) and pay attention to the description through the porosity arrows.

Response 2: It’s our mistake. We have modified the scale and redescribed the arrows in Fig.3 which matches original Fig.2.

Please enter the scale in Fig. 3.

Response 3: We have added scale in the figure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Memorandum

 

Subject: Review, September 15, 2022

Materials

Title:  High-Temperature Water-Vapor Reaction Mechanism of Barium Strontium Aluminosilicate (BSAS)

Comments:

1.       The authors should consider adding a nomenclature to identify parameters and abbreviations used throughout the paper.

2.       The authors should highlight in some details the experiment tests performed and showing a photo of the experimental setup is very helpful.

3.       On Figure 2(a), the authors should identify what is being noted on the photos, “large” ? is not conclusive. On figure 2(b) there is no indication that shows what is the difference between the 2 images, key pint of interest must be identified with a label.

4.       Similarly figure 3(a) could use some labels to identify what is being presented.

5.       That authors in Figure 5 refer to a 3D image construction without elaborating on the images were construct and what tool was used. Avizo software is mentioned for the calculation, was it equally used for 3D construction? this should be clarified. Also, Avizo software should be referenced.

6.       The conclusion can be improved, the current statements do not offer a clear concluding remark. The authors should cite what was accomplished and what may have impacted the outcome of the study if any exists. Considering a bullet type statements citing what was found and if anything may have impacted the results would serve the reader better.

 

Overall, the paper is relatively in good format, upon addressing the above minor issues, then it can be considered for publication.

 

Author Response

1. The authors should consider adding a nomenclature to identify parameters and abbreviations used throughout the paper.

Response 1: Thanks for your good suggestion. Nomenclatures had been added to identify parameters and abbreviations. (In blue)

2. The authors should highlight in some details the experiment tests performed and showing a photo of the experimental setup is very helpful.

Response 2: We’ve considered the reviewer’s comment seriously, and we have added details in section 2.2 about experiment tests and showed a schematic of the experimental setup used for molten salt infiltration tests. (In blue)

3. On Figure 2(a), the authors should identify what is being noted on the photos, “large” ? is not conclusive. On figure 2(b) there is no indication that shows what is the difference between the 2 images, key pint of interest must be identified with a label.

Response 3: We’ve considered the reviewer’s advice seriously. The explanation on Fig.2(a) was not appropriate, and we have reinterpreted in section 3.1. By comparison with Fig.2(a), Fig.2(b) made an explanation on the change of pores. It’s because after molten salt infiltration test, part of the pores were filled with salt.

4. Similarly figure 3(a) could use some labels to identify what is being presented.

Response 4: It’s a good idea, and we have marked labels to show pores of SiCf/SiC

composite in Fig 4(a1) and (a2).

 

5. That authors in Figure 5 refer to a 3D image construction without elaborating on the images were construct and what tool was used. Avizo software is mentioned for the calculation, was it equally used for 3D construction? this should be clarified. Also, Avizo software should be referenced.

Response 5: The characterization was implemented by CT technology. ‘PITRE3’ software developed by Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility was used for 3D image construction. Avizo software is a commercial software, which can be used for 3D display and quantitative characterization of images. We have mentioned them in section 2.2.2.

6. The conclusion can be improved, the current statements do not offer a clear concluding remark. The authors should cite what was accomplished and what may have impacted the outcome of the study if any exists. Considering a bullet type statements citing what was found and if anything may have impacted the results would serve the reader better.

Response 6: Thanks for your constructive advise. The authors had reorganized the conclusion according to your suggestion. (In blue)

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents a study using methods that exhaustively describe the object. I have a few comments that do not detract from the high level of the reviewed work.

1. A few typos.
- line 61 Synchronous instead of Synchrotron
- line 101 KeV instead of keV
- line 114 reflected instead of diffracted
- line 116 missing degree designation
- line 130 no designation of the figure (c)

2. In figure 4, the reflex indices should be added.

3. Based on the X-ray diffraction studies, the size of the coherent scattering area and the lattice deformation can be calculated. It seems to me that your data allow you to do this. Numerical values of the strain would complement your study. 

The different methods are described here:

M. Rabiei, A. Palevicius, A. Monshi, S. Nasiri, A. Vilkauskas, G. Janusas, "Comparing Methods for Calculating Nano Crystal Size of Natural Hydroxyapatite Using X-Ray Diffraction," Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1627; doi:10.3390/nano10091627

Author Response

The article presents a study using methods that exhaustively describe the object. I have a few comments that do not detract from the high level of the reviewed work.

1. A few typos.
   - line 61 Synchronous instead of Synchrotron
   - line 101 KeV instead of keV
   - line 114 reflected instead of diffracted
   - line 116 missing degree designation
   - line 130 no designation of the figure (c)

Response 1: It was our mistake. Thanks for pointing out the error, the typos have been corrected. (In green)

2. In figure 4, the reflex indices should be added.

Response 2: The reflex indices has been added in the figure.

3. Based on the X-ray diffraction studies, the size of the coherent scattering area and the lattice deformation can be calculated. It seems to me that your data allow you to do this. Numerical values of the strain would complement your study. 

The different methods are described here:

10. Rabiei, A. Palevicius, A. Monshi, S. Nasiri, A. Vilkauskas, G. Janusas, "Comparing Methods for Calculating Nano Crystal Size of Natural Hydroxyapatite Using X-Ray Diffraction," Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1627; doi:10.3390/nano10091627

Response 3: Thanks for your great suggestion. The authors has complemented this analysis. (In green)