Inducing the Effect of a Ga2O3 Nano-Particle on the CsF-RbF-AlF3 Flux for Brazing Aluminum to Carbon Steels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed manuscript contains interesting results.
However, the text must be corrected and extended.
Particularly, the information about the origin, morphology, and characteristics of the employed nanosized Ga2O3 particles (EDX elemental mapping and BET surface area) is missing.
Fig. 6 shows that the peaks for most components overlap. Therefore, please provide a concentration of each constituent presented in this Fig.
Please provide thermodynamics of the presented chemical reactions including the Gibbs energy or enthalpy changes.
I would like also to provide the microstructural analysis at the interface of the joint including the thickness of the interfacial IMC layer.
Therefore, the manuscript should be reconsidered after a major revision.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading your kind advices and the comments provided by the reviewers. All the revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Crystals. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 1
The reviewed manuscript contains interesting results.
However, the text must be corrected and extended.
1.Particularly, the information about the origin, morphology, and characteristics of the employed nanosized Ga2O3 particles (EDX elemental mapping and BET surface area) is missing.
Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. Influence of the morphology of the Ga2O3 particles has been mentioned in the article. Limited by the outbreak of the pneumonia in Wuhan, China, we are sorry that additional tests have not been performed.
2.Fig. 6 shows that the peaks for most components overlap. Therefore, please provide a concentration of each constituent presented in this Fig.
Response: Thanks for your precise comments. Relevant concentration has been clarified in Table 3 and Table 4.
3.Please provide thermodynamics of the presented chemical reactions including the Gibbs energy or enthalpy changes.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. The Gibbs energy and enthalpy changes of the important chemical reactions have been detailed in the article.
4.I would like also to provide the microstructural analysis at the interface of the joint including the thickness of the interfacial IMC layer.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. The microstructural analysis at the interface of the joint and the thickness of the interfacial IMC layer you mentioned have been detailed in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, effect of Ga2O3 nanoparticles in CsF-RbF-AlF3 flux are analyzed with respect to two base alloys namely AA5052 and Q235 steel. The results of this paper are interesting. However, few minor questions need to be addressed for the better understanding of scientific audience.
Section I (Line 40): Since the paper also discusses the effect of CsF-RbF-AlF3-xGa2O3 flux on the spreading of AA5052 alloy. Its important to include aluminum along with steel. Section 2 (Line 43 and 44): Authors should check for type errors. Section 3.1: From the SEM images, the morphology of the Ga2O3 particles does not agree with the claim made by the authors as nanoparticles. Rather, the morphology looks rod-like or flaky. The author should clearly state the morphology of Ga2O3 particles. Figure 4 needs to be further augmented with Ga2O3 addition percentage. Conclusion: The authors cannot conclude about the pitting corrosion of Ga2O3 added flux unless they discuss with proper evidence in the manuscript.Author Response
Dear editor,
We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading your kind advices and the comments provided by the reviewers. All the revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Crystals. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 2
In this paper, effect of Ga2O3 nanoparticles in CsF-RbF-AlF3 flux are analyzed with respect to two base alloys namely AA5052 and Q235 steel. The results of this paper are interesting. However, few minor questions need to be addressed for the better understanding of scientific audience.
1.Section I (Line 40): Since the paper also discusses the effect of CsF-RbF-AlF3-xGa2O3 flux on the spreading of AA5052 alloy. It’s important to include aluminum along with steel.
Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. The description has been revised in the article.
2.Section 2 (Line 43 and 44): Authors should check for type errors.
Response: Thanks for your kind reminder. Relevant contents have been corrected in the article.
3.Section 3.1: From the SEM images, the morphology of the Ga2O3 particles does not agree with the claim made by the authors as nanoparticles. Rather, the morphology looks rod-like or flaky. The author should clearly state the morphology of Ga2O3 particles.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. Influence of the morphology of the Ga2O3 particles has been mentioned in the article supporting by new references.
4.Figure 4 needs to be further augmented with Ga2O3 addition percentage.
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. Figure 4 has been further augmented with Ga2O3 addition percentage after revision.
Conclusion: The authors cannot conclude about the pitting corrosion of Ga2O3 added flux unless they discuss with proper evidence in the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. Relevant contents have been corrected in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all the manuscript still need a remarkable English language revision. I strongly recommend to propose to the author a professional revision. Thanks to the revisions of the previous referees the text improved a lot both from the scientific soundness and from the manuscript rational organization. Overall the scientific quality is adequate for publication and I cannot find remarkable points that need further check or re-evaluation. However the quality of the written language is simply not good enough for the MDPI standard. Owing to this I recommend to accept this manuscript after a remarkable language check.Author Response
Dear editor,
We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading your kind advices and the comments provided by the reviewers. All the revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Crystals. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 3
- First of all the manuscript still need a remarkable English language revision. I strongly recommend to propose to the author a professional revision. Thanks to the revisions of the previous referees the text improved a lot both from the scientific soundness and from the manuscript rational organization. Overall the scientific quality is adequate for publication and I cannot find remarkable points that need further check or re-evaluation. However, the quality of the written language is simply not good enough for the MDPI standard. Owing to this I recommend to accept this manuscript after a remarkable language check.
Response: We have made our manuscript checked by a professional English editing service provided by MDPI including checking grammar, spelling, punctuation and some improvement of style where necessary.
Secondly, we have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word so that the details of the revisions are easily visible to the editors and reviewers.
Best regards,
Prof. Xue
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am regret but the manuscript can not be published in the present form:
the information related to the employed nanoparticles is still missing; the experimental part and results of the presented microstructural analysis of the joint should include more details; In my opinion, XRD is suitable for quality control providing the detection limit starting from 0.1 wt.% per phase. Therefore, I would ask the authors to exclude Figure 7, Table 3 and the related text from the manuscript; extensive editing of English language and style required (this recommendation for the authors was ignored).I would give the authors a possibility to improve their manuscript.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading your kind advices and the comments provided by the reviewers. All the revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Crystals. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 1
the information related to the employed nanoparticles is still missing;
Response: Thank you for your kind reminder. EDX elemental mapping of the Ga2O3 particles has been mentioned in the article as Figure 2.
the experimental part and results of the presented microstructural analysis of the joint should include more details;
Response: Thanks for your precise comments. More details about the experimental part and results of the presented microstructural analysis of the joint have been clarified in the article.
In my opinion, XRD is suitable for quality control providing the detection limit starting from 0.1 wt.% per phase. Therefore, I would ask the authors to exclude Figure 7, Table 3 and the related text from the manuscript;
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. Figure 7, Table 3 and the related text have been excluded or modified in the manuscript.
extensive editing of English language and style required (this recommendation for the authors was ignored)
Response: Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. The editing of English language and style have been checked in the article reflected in multiple places.
Best regards,
Prof. Xue
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I regret but I reject the manuscript to be published in the present form.
The authors should correct grammar and spelling.
Furthermore, the authors have only partly improved the text according to my comments.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We have substantially revised our manuscript after reading your kind advices and the comments provided by the reviewers. All the revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on Crystals. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Response to the reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer 1
- The authors should correct grammar and spelling.
Response: We have made our manuscript checked by a professional English editing service provided by MDPI including checking grammar, spelling, punctuation and some improvement of style where necessary.
Secondly, we have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word so that the
details of the revisions are easily visible to the editors and reviewers.
- Furthermore, the authors have only partly improved the text according to my comments.
Response: Thanks for your precise comments. We are very sorry that our revision did not make your satisfaction.
To make a clearer explanation of the interfacial IMC layer, we have outlined the region of IMC in Figure 5.
Since you have mentioned the experimental part and results of the presented microstructural analysis of the joint should include more details, we have made some supplements from line 159 to line 162.
Best regards,
Prof. Xue
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
