The Effect of Temperature on the Surface Energetic Properties of Carbon Fibers Using Inverse Gas Chromatography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, 

The aim of this study is to the correction of the various surface parameters of the carbon fibers in the inverse gas chromatography technique. The title is specific and has a clear focus.

The paper is well-organized, content-rich, and analytically sound, but there is space for improvement. The suggested modifications include:

The abstract summarizes the research background, objectives, methods, and conclusions. It is recommended to add key research results to support the conclusions and reveal the significance of the study.

The introduction describes the content in a relationship with the aim of the study. It builds interest in the topic. However, the relevant papers similar to this study need to be cited and briefly discussed. Besides, the introduction includes much general and well-known information about the topic, which can be omitted or shortened. To sum up, a brief section discussing the recent studies similar to the study needs to be included.

The author give sufficient figures and visual material to discuss the topic as the visual content is helpful and worthy for publication. The results section simply states what has been found from the experiments rather than synthesizing the results to provide clear insights into the underlying physics/chemistry that govern the observations. Much of it reads as a paragraph-by-paragraph listing of the results obtained but with the absence of narrative tying them together. It is much more of a listing and much less of critical thoughts on the work that it reports on. The results should be compared and discuss with the relevant studies already presented in the literature. Besides, the underlying reasons for the results should be emphasized by citing some fundamental studies.

The conclusion should better identify the overall conclusions and importance of the study for academic and industrial work. Also, a brief description of future work that can be followed after this study needs to be added.

Author Response

The aim of this study is to the correction of the various surface parameters of the carbon fibers in the inverse gas chromatography technique. The title is specific and has a clear focus.

The paper is well-organized, content-rich, and analytically sound, but there is space for improvement. The suggested modifications include:

The abstract summarizes the research background, objectives, methods, and conclusions. It is recommended to add key research results to support the conclusions and reveal the significance of the study.

Many thanks for the reviewer’s comments.

Some key results were added in the abstract.

 

The introduction describes the content in a relationship with the aim of the study. It builds interest in the topic. However, the relevant papers similar to this study need to be cited and briefly discussed. Besides, the introduction includes much general and well-known information about the topic, which can be omitted or shortened. To sum up, a brief section discussing the recent studies similar to the study needs to be included.

Thanks to the reviewer’s suggestion.

A section on the similar studies was added.

 

The author gives sufficient figures and visual material to discuss the topic as the visual content is helpful and worthy for publication. The results section simply states what has been found from the experiments rather than synthesizing the results to provide clear insights into the underlying physics/chemistry that govern the observations. Much of it reads as a paragraph-by-paragraph listing of the results obtained but with the absence of narrative tying them together. It is much more of a listing and much less of critical thoughts on the work that it reports on. The results should be compared and discuss with the relevant studies already presented in the literature. Besides, the underlying reasons for the results should be emphasized by citing some fundamental studies.

Thanks to the reviewer’s comment.

Several relevant studies were added. A whole section was destinated to the comparison of our results to those obtained by other works.

 

The conclusion should better identify the overall conclusions and importance of the study for academic and industrial work. Also, a brief description of future work that can be followed after this study needs to be added.

Thanks to the reviewer’s comment.

A paragraph was added to the conclusion taking into account the reviewer’s suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       I strongly recommend that the expression of RTlnVn be changed to RTln(Vn) throughout the context.

2.       It is instructive for the authors to list the 6 different molecular models for the evaluation of the surface areas of molecules in the supplement information.

3.       The authors need to provide the chemical specifications and microstructures of two carbon fibers, untreated and oxidized. The chemical composition of the oxidized carbon fibers is essential in this study as these oxidized components or groups would determine the overall (macroscopic) thermodynamic behavior of the bulk materials.

4.       If possible, please provide the standard deviations of fitting functions in Figures S1-S6. Alternatively, the authors need to add the information of R² (coefficient of determination) in the corresponding tables for the fitting function. The R² is statistically crucial for a quantitative assessment of fitting.

5.       My recommendation is minor revisions based on (1) the comprehensiveness of the experimental study, (2) careful data curation and analyses, (3) a quite thorough model surveys, and (4) reasonable interpretations of the results of analyses.

6.       Please check the typo and format carefully and thoroughly. For example:

·         The word “proved” is suggested to be replaced by “supported”, “indicated”, “implies”, or other similar words. As we try to illustrate physical or mathematical models point in certain directions or outcomes. Proof is a very rigorous term in science, which by and large means correct and accurate.

·         “Lewis’s acid-base” should be “Lewis acid-base”.

·         Line 237, boldface: 𝜸_𝒔^𝒅(𝑻=𝟎𝑲).

 

·         Line 240, “slop”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comments.

Author Response

1. I strongly recommend that the expression of RTlnVn be changed to RTln(Vn) throughout the context.

Many thanks to the reviewer’s recommendation.

RTlnVn was replaced by RTln(Vn) throughout the context

2. It is instructive for the authors to list the 6 different molecular models for the evaluation of the surface areas of molecules in the supplement information.

Thanks to the reviewer’s comment.

The different molecular models are added in the supplement information.

3. The authors need to provide the chemical specifications and microstructures of two carbon fibers, untreated and oxidized. The chemical composition of the oxidized carbon fibers is essential in this study as these oxidized components or groups would determine the overall (macroscopic) thermodynamic behavior of the bulk materials.

Thanks to the reviewer’s comment.

On added Table 10 giving the chemical composition of the two carbon fibers

4. If possible, please provide the standard deviations of fitting functions in Figures S1-S6. Alternatively, the authors need to add the information of R² (coefficient of determination) in the corresponding tables for the fitting function. The R² is statistically crucial for a quantitative assessment of fitting.

I would like to thank the reviewer for his comment.

The linear regression coefficients R² in the Figures S1-S4 are very close to 1. Indeed, in all cases, R² > 0.98. However, in Figures S5 and S6, the situation is not the same, the coefficients R² corresponding to these figures were given in Tables 4 and 5 of this paper.

 

5. My recommendation is minor revisions based on (1) the comprehensiveness of the experimental study, (2) careful data curation and analyses, (3) a quite thorough model surveys, and (4) reasonable interpretations of the results of analyses.

Thanks to the reviewer’s comment. More sentences were added in the manuscript.  A new section was also added to compare between our results and those obtained in literature by other works.

6. Please check the typo and format carefully and thoroughly. For example:

• The word “proved” is suggested to be replaced by “supported”, “indicated”, “implies”, or other similar words. As we try to illustrate physical or mathematical models point in certain directions or outcomes. Proof is a very rigorous term in science, which by and large means correct and accurate.

The manuscript was revised and corrected, all terms such as “proved” were replaced by other appropriated words.

• “Lewis’s acid-base” should be “Lewis acid-base”.
• Line 237, boldface: ?_?^?(?=??).

Many thanks for the reviewer for his correction.

The previous mistakes were corrected

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article introduced a new methodology for carbon fiber surface property determination for both untreated and oxidized forms. Thermal effect on surface thermodynamic properties was compared between existing models. I think the paper is capable to be published in Crystals if the following issues can be addressed:

1.      The author listed many tables and plots for the comparison between models. It would be easier for the readers to catch the key information if the results for the major models can be highlighted.

2.      Plot order in Figure 1 seems to be reversed. Please double check.

Author Response

This article introduced a new methodology for carbon fiber surface property determination for both untreated and oxidized forms. Thermal effect on surface thermodynamic properties was compared between existing models. I think the paper is capable to be published in Crystals if the following issues can be addressed:

1. The author listed many tables and plots for the comparison between models. It would be easier for the readers to catch the key information if the results for the major models can be highlighted.

Many thanks for the reviewer’s comments and efforts. Many sentences were added to give more information and clarification. A section was also added to compare between our results and those obtained in other works.

2. Plot order in Figure 1 seems to be reversed. Please double check.

Thank you to the reviewer. The figures were corrected.